Hi everyone,
(please cc)
see $subject ...
No warning, nothing in the logs, but pinging my router I get
things like:
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
376 packets transmitted, 315 received, +33 errors, 16% packet loss, time 405164ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.873/10077.793/95935.698/25387.102 ms, pipe 68
or
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
1252 packets transmitted, 1225 received, 2% packet loss, time 1252976ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.941/764.171/19929.265/2758.225 ms, pipe 20
Has anyone *ever* seen a mdev of 25387.102 ms ???
At the same time I am pinging the same router from an iphone with a
steady stream of 40ms or so, no problem whatsoever ...
$ lspci -v -s 03:00.0
03:00.0 Network controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8191SEvB Wireless LAN Controller (rev 10)
Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device e020
Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 17
I/O ports at 2000 [size=256]
Memory at f0500000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3
Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+
Capabilities: [70] Express Legacy Endpoint, MSI 00
Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
Capabilities: [140] Virtual Channel
Capabilities: [160] Device Serial Number 88-55-22-fe-ff-4c-e0-00
Kernel driver in use: rtl8192se
That is with git from yesterday or so.
Best wishes
Norbert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live and Debian Developer
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'
--- Arthur experiences the improbability drive at work.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
On 09/13/2012 05:18 AM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> (please cc)
>
> see $subject ...
>
> No warning, nothing in the logs, but pinging my router I get
> things like:
> --- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
> 376 packets transmitted, 315 received, +33 errors, 16% packet loss, time 405164ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.873/10077.793/95935.698/25387.102 ms, pipe 68
>
> or
> --- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
> 1252 packets transmitted, 1225 received, 2% packet loss, time 1252976ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.941/764.171/19929.265/2758.225 ms, pipe 20
>
>
> Has anyone *ever* seen a mdev of 25387.102 ms ???
>
> At the same time I am pinging the same router from an iphone with a
> steady stream of 40ms or so, no problem whatsoever ...
>
> $ lspci -v -s 03:00.0
> 03:00.0 Network controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8191SEvB Wireless LAN Controller (rev 10)
> Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device e020
> Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 17
> I/O ports at 2000 [size=256]
> Memory at f0500000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
> Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3
> Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+
> Capabilities: [70] Express Legacy Endpoint, MSI 00
> Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
> Capabilities: [140] Virtual Channel
> Capabilities: [160] Device Serial Number 88-55-22-fe-ff-4c-e0-00
> Kernel driver in use: rtl8192se
When you post the output of lspci, always include the -nn or -nnv switches. That
way, we get the PCI ID. As there are several varieties of the RTL8192SE, I need
that info. In addition, what are the details of your AP - STA configuration.
What is the distance? Is it 802.11n or 802.11g? What is the signal strength as
indicated by iwconfig or a scan?
Larry
On 09/13/2012 05:18 AM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> (please cc)
>
> see $subject ...
>
> No warning, nothing in the logs, but pinging my router I get
> things like:
> --- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
> 376 packets transmitted, 315 received, +33 errors, 16% packet loss, time 405164ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.873/10077.793/95935.698/25387.102 ms, pipe 68
>
> or
> --- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
> 1252 packets transmitted, 1225 received, 2% packet loss, time 1252976ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.941/764.171/19929.265/2758.225 ms, pipe 20
>
>
> Has anyone *ever* seen a mdev of 25387.102 ms ???
No, but packets that are not returned for 19+ or 95+ seconds are usually counted
as lost.
I have 4 different cards that use rtl8192se. With the current wireless-testing
git, I get the following:
Card 1: Antenna config not known
--------------------------------
Network controller [0280]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8191SEvB Wireless
LAN Controller [10ec:8172] (rev 10)
100 packets transmitted, 100 received, 0% packet loss, time 99138ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.106/2.824/107.634/10.684 ms
Card 2: Labeled 1x1
-------------------
Network controller [0280]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8191SEvA Wireless
LAN Controller [10ec:8171] (rev 10)
100 packets transmitted, 100 received, 0% packet loss, time 99139ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.986/1.954/26.982/3.005 ms
Card 3: Labeled 1x2
-------------------
Network controller [0280]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8191SEvB Wireless
LAN Controller [10ec:8172] (rev 10)
100 packets transmitted, 100 received, 0% packet loss, time 99141ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.996/2.507/50.636/5.989 ms
Card 4: Labeled 2x2
-------------------
Network controller [0280]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8192SE Wireless
LAN Controller [10ec:8174] (rev 10)
100 packets transmitted, 99 received, 1% packet loss, time 99146ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.974/1.768/31.183/3.016 ms
My AP is a Netgear WNDR3300 with a max rate of 270 Mbps in the 2.4 GHz band. The
distance between my laptop and the AP is about 2m. The card is on an Express
Card PCIe extender, and I have 2 7 dBi antennas connected. They likely boost the
signal more than the ordinary laptop antennas would. The iwconfig output for
card 4 is
wlan26 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:"lwfdjf-n"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.422 GHz Access Point: C0:3F:0E:BE:2B:44
Bit Rate=270 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality=70/70 Signal level=-35 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
From what you posted earlier, I think your card is like my Cards 1 & 3, but the
PCI ID will tell for sure. These tests were run with commit 0a92aec2f22d of
wireless-testing. There are some test patches installed, but non of them affect
rtl8192se.
Larry
Hi Larry,
thanks for the answer, here some more information as requested
AP infos:distance: 3m
NEC Aterm WR8600N ATERM-B45459
firmware 1.0.11
Network card is built in into a Lenovo Thinkpad Edge
# lspci -nnv -s 03:00.0
03:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8191SEvB Wireless LAN Controller [10ec:8172] (rev 10)
Subsystem: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Device [10ec:e020]
Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 17
I/O ports at 2000 [size=256]
Memory at f0500000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
Capabilities: [40] Power Management version 3
Capabilities: [50] MSI: Enable- Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+
Capabilities: [70] Express Legacy Endpoint, MSI 00
Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
Capabilities: [140] Virtual Channel
Capabilities: [160] Device Serial Number 88-55-22-fe-ff-4c-e0-00
Kernel driver in use: rtl8192se
# iwconfig wlan0
wlan0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:"norbujp"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.442 GHz Access Point: 00:3A:9D:B4:54:5A
Bit Rate=150 Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality=70/70 Signal level=-35 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:9 Missed beacon:0
at this point there is according to ifconfig/iwconfig a connection
up and running, but ping tells me:
# ping 192.168.0.1
...
>From 192.168.0.2 icmp_seq=77 Destination Host Unreachable
..
I tried with network-manager as well as without and wpa_supplicant
directly, no change.
Also removing the module and reloading it did not help.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Larry Finger wrote:
> the details of your AP - STA configuration. What is the distance? Is
I think it is pretty standard WPA-PSK, is there anything more I can
tell you, please let me know.
> it 802.11n or 802.11g? What is the signal strength as indicated by
> iwconfig or a scan?
See above.
> From what you posted earlier, I think your card is like my Cards 1 &
> 3, but the PCI ID will tell for sure. These tests were run with
> commit 0a92aec2f22d of wireless-testing. There are some test patches
> installed, but non of them affect rtl8192se.
I am running on top of default kernel git, will try wireless-testing, too.
Thanks a lot and all the best, and let me know what I can provide more!
Norbert
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live and Debian Developer
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPING (participial vb.)
The increasingly anxious shifting from leg to leg you go through when
you are desperate to go to the lavatory and the person you are talking
to keeps on remembering a few final things he want to mention.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Hi Larry, hi all,
On Fr, 14 Sep 2012, wrote:
> I am running on top of default kernel git, will try wireless-testing, too.
I tried now with wireless-testing from yesterday, and had the same problem.
Actually, I got even *better* results:
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=75 ttl=255 time=137856 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=76 ttl=255 time=136848 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=78 ttl=255 time=134943 ms
...
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.110/46967.879/137856.232/49666.671 ms, pipe 138
So now we are mdev of 50secs sometimes ;-)
Another interesting things:
At home I have the problems with the NEC router, but I am now at
the university. I am writing this email over a very very stable
ssh link to another server.
Here is the output iof ifconfig:
$ ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 60:eb:69:c9:0c:ea
UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:20418 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:20418 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:1950587 (1.8 MiB) TX bytes:1950587 (1.8 MiB)
wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 88:9f:fa:f9:07:28
inet addr:150.65.206.200 Bcast:150.65.207.255 Mask:255.255.252.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:232640 errors:0 dropped:1 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:69798 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:85599897 (81.6 MiB) TX bytes:8925832 (8.5 MiB)
But the kernel is convinced that I am not connected ...:
$ iw dev wlan0 link
Not connected.
$ iwconfig wlan0
wlan0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:off/any
Mode:Managed Access Point: Not-Associated Tx-Power=20 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
And no, I guarantee you there is no ethernet cable plugged in ;-)
I can only assume that is a problem with iwconfig/iw being too old,
although according to the output of iwconfig it is fine:
# iw --version
iw version 3.4
# iwconfig --version
iwconfig Wireless-Tools version 30
Compatible with Wireless Extension v11 to v22.
Kernel Currently compiled with Wireless Extension v22.
wlan0 Recommend Wireless Extension v21 or later,
Currently compiled with Wireless Extension v22.
# uname -a
Linux tofuschnitzel 3.6.0-rc5-wl+ #19 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 14 13:14:15 JST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Best wishes
Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHICAGO (n.)
The foul-smelling wind which precedes an underground railway train.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
There we go again, rtl is completely hosed ...
$ ping 192.168.0.1 # this is my router!!!
PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=21 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=22 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=23 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=24 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=25 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=26 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=27 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=28 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=29 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=30 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=31 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=32 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=33 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=34 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=35 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=36 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=37 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.6 icmp_seq=38 Destination Host Unreachable
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=255 time=38455 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=255 time=37453 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=255 time=36445 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=4 ttl=255 time=35437 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=5 ttl=255 time=34429 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=6 ttl=255 time=33421 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=7 ttl=255 time=32413 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=8 ttl=255 time=31405 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=9 ttl=255 time=30397 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=10 ttl=255 time=29388 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=11 ttl=255 time=28381 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=12 ttl=255 time=27373 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=13 ttl=255 time=26365 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=14 ttl=255 time=25357 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=15 ttl=255 time=24349 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=16 ttl=255 time=23341 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=17 ttl=255 time=22333 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=18 ttl=255 time=21325 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=19 ttl=255 time=20317 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=20 ttl=255 time=19309 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=39 ttl=255 time=207 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=40 ttl=255 time=1.36 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=41 ttl=255 time=1.22 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=42 ttl=255 time=1.76 ms
^C
--- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics ---
42 packets transmitted, 24 received, +18 errors, 42% packet loss, time 41261ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.229/24079.534/38455.055/11983.493 ms, pipe 39
$
Yeahhhhh.....
we are talking about my router, and a stability that is below
the quality of morse code ...
On Sa, 15 Sep 2012, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Larry, hi all,
>
> On Fr, 14 Sep 2012, wrote:
> > I am running on top of default kernel git, will try wireless-testing, too.
>
> I tried now with wireless-testing from yesterday, and had the same problem.
> Actually, I got even *better* results:
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=75 ttl=255 time=137856 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=76 ttl=255 time=136848 ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=78 ttl=255 time=134943 ms
>
> ...
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.110/46967.879/137856.232/49666.671 ms, pipe 138
>
>
> So now we are mdev of 50secs sometimes ;-)
>
>
> Another interesting things:
> At home I have the problems with the NEC router, but I am now at
> the university. I am writing this email over a very very stable
> ssh link to another server.
>
> Here is the output iof ifconfig:
> $ ifconfig
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 60:eb:69:c9:0c:ea
> UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)
>
> lo Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
> UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
> RX packets:20418 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:20418 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> RX bytes:1950587 (1.8 MiB) TX bytes:1950587 (1.8 MiB)
>
> wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 88:9f:fa:f9:07:28
> inet addr:150.65.206.200 Bcast:150.65.207.255 Mask:255.255.252.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:232640 errors:0 dropped:1 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:69798 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> RX bytes:85599897 (81.6 MiB) TX bytes:8925832 (8.5 MiB)
>
>
> But the kernel is convinced that I am not connected ...:
> $ iw dev wlan0 link
> Not connected.
> $ iwconfig wlan0
> wlan0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:off/any
> Mode:Managed Access Point: Not-Associated Tx-Power=20 dBm
> Retry long limit:7 RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr:off
> Encryption key:off
> Power Management:off
>
>
> And no, I guarantee you there is no ethernet cable plugged in ;-)
>
> I can only assume that is a problem with iwconfig/iw being too old,
> although according to the output of iwconfig it is fine:
> # iw --version
> iw version 3.4
> # iwconfig --version
> iwconfig Wireless-Tools version 30
> Compatible with Wireless Extension v11 to v22.
>
> Kernel Currently compiled with Wireless Extension v22.
>
> wlan0 Recommend Wireless Extension v21 or later,
> Currently compiled with Wireless Extension v22.
>
> # uname -a
> Linux tofuschnitzel 3.6.0-rc5-wl+ #19 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 14 13:14:15 JST 2012 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Norbert
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
> JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
> DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CHICAGO (n.)
> The foul-smelling wind which precedes an underground railway train.
> --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Best wishes
Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPITTAL OF GLENSHEE (n.)
That which has to be cleaned off castle floors in the morning after a
bagpipe contest or vampire attack.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff