Thanks, Lukas
> According to my interpretation the calculation should depend
> on channel width (20MHz in normal mode, 40MHz in turbo mode, same for 802.11g
> and 802.11a), not on MAC chip clocks.
thanks, then my guess was irrelevant...
I got some improvement (even not so significant), but I might have
mislead myself at this moment .
let me show my observation during last a few days.
at first
- chip is AR5414
- I pulled down codes via git a week before and your recent patches were
applied.
then what I have observed till now was
1. stable and excellent throughput for 5GHz (with 1hop and also 2hops cases)
16Mbps(1hop) , 8Mbps(2hops)
note: testing with IBSS ad-hoc mode, 1 hop, 2hops , 3 hops..
2. still not good and unstable throughput for 2.4Ghz
thanks to your patch[3/5], [4/5], throughput was improved pretty much
but still staying around 10~15Mbps(1hop), 1Mbps~6Mbps(2hops)
without my experimental patch, 2hops throughput was
worse than the case with that patch.
( 1~2Mbps vs 1~6Mbps --> I can't say this difference is significant ) .
debugfs(rc_stats) shows minstrel reported around 85%~95 success
rate with 48/54Mbps and selected low xmit rate.
(this was the result on limited number of tests. five ~ ten times )
in my these tests, node is sitting pretty close (1m) to each other,
therefore I did not enable RTS/CTS and just counted on physical
carrier sense.
Does it seem that there still exist vulnerable part around carrier
sensing for 2.4GHz.?
anyway,
I would like to get back to this issue, again later
thanks
Taka
On 23.12.2009 12:43 $B3$At7IG7(B wrote:
> 2. still not good and unstable throughput for 2.4Ghz
> thanks to your patch[3/5], [4/5], throughput was improved pretty much
> but still staying around 10~15Mbps(1hop), 1Mbps~6Mbps(2hops)
That's strange, those patches can't change anything... They modify a code that
cannot be used until patch[5/5] is applied, and even then you probably don't
use it, because you didn't say you set the coverage class.
I think there's something wrong with your test methodology, because I don't
notice any difference, TCP throughput is always around 3MB/s. However I
haven't tried ath5k on both ends yet.
Have you tried setting a fixed rate (via iwconfig, it's not in iw yet)?
Or setting a fixed antenna (there's no UI yet, you have to hardcode it, see
function ath5k_hw_set_antenna_mode)?
Lukas Turek