Topology tool predictive survey vs post validation survey. Care to share?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 4 years ago
  • Answered
Has anyone used the Aerohive Topology tool to predict a deployment, installed the APs and then done post deployment validation surveys? If so, how accurate/how well did your topology tool predictive survey match up with your deployment/validation?

I realize there are numerous variables that could skew things one way or the other but I'm hoping that if you're using this site, that you will know what you're doing.

Any experiences you folks could share are greatly appreciated!

- John
Photo of intvlan1shut


  • 29 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 5 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Bill Lundgren

Bill Lundgren, Employee

  • 21 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Hi John,

I've had the opportunity to put our (Aerohive) mapping and prediction tools up against both Ekahau and Airmagnet and I can tell you from experience, they are all pretty much the same.

I've installed some very large environments, and on a purely predictive basis, our tool, AirMagnet, and Ekahau will usually agree on the AP count, give or take an AP or two.

From a post-installation basis, using just the Aerohive prediction tool and comparing to actual measured results doing active survey with AirMagnet and Ekahau, I've never been surprised by any result. The coverage predicted is pretty much spot on. In fact, I feel our tool is slightly conservative in the coverage, and normally we end up with better-than-predicted in real life. This does however require that A) you supplied the predictive model as much information about wall type and environment as you could and B) there wan't any unknown situation in the environment. For instance, I had a business that found one of their walls was a former X-Ray room, and the walls were not just concrete - they were partly lead - which the prediction did not take into account, causing us the need to add an AP post-install.

So, in summary, the Aerohive tool, when used right, is actually pretty great, and does just as good of a job on a purely predictive basis as the others, that you have to pay a goof chunk of cash for.

Bill Lundgren
Aerohive North Central Region SE
Photo of Patrick Sewell

Patrick Sewell

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I know this is a pretty old thread, but I feel that my experience with this tool may benefit others.  Bill is absolutely spot-on in everything he says about the planning.  We have a campus of about 80 buildings where we use Aerohive AP's and our team has made maps of every one of them.  We have thoroughly surveyed to determine what building materials are used in walls around campus and have created our maps to reflect our findings.  In almost all circumstances, the prediction tool has been quite accurate and, at times, can be conservative in it's predictions.  We have done post-deployment surveys to confirm the accuracy of the planning tool in multiple buildings and have found it is very close in it's predictions if you have the correct buildings materials selected for your walls.  

I would highly recommend using the Hivemanager planning tool to anybody and also recommend reading the deployment guides found on the Aerohive website to get information about the best practices for planning wireless deployments.  

Patrick Sewell