Message-ID: <45D4A175.8060207@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:07:49 -0800
From: James Ketrenos <jketreno@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Zhu Yi <yi.zhu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: IPW2200 monitoring FW broken
References: <200702151840.16963.mb@bu3sch.de> <200702151910.59609.mb@bu3sch.de> <45D49BDA.30402@linux.intel.com> <200702152020.28131.mb@bu3sch.de>
In-Reply-To: <200702152020.28131.mb@bu3sch.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2007 18:43, James Ketrenos wrote:
>> Michael Buesch wrote:
>>> On Thursday 15 February 2007 17:35, James Ketrenos wrote:
>>>> you can't update the packet capture  
>>>> window or you'll lose packets; but you should be able to get them all if 
>>>> you're doing a tethereal > somefile or if you turn off the update of the 
>>>> main window.
>>> "update of the packet capture window". What's that?
>>> I started a simple traffic monitoring in wireshark. Nothing fancy.
>> In the 'Capture Options', the only option you can set is 'Hide capture 
>> info dialog'.  If you turn on 'Update list of packets in real time' or 
>> 'Automatic scrolling in live capture', packets get dropped.  I don't 
>> know if its a libpcap queue that fills up, if it starves the NIC, or 
>> what--but having those turned on greatly reduces the # of packets you'll 
>> capture.
> 
> Hm, yeah. I have that turned on. But I don't see this issue
> when monitoring with bcm43xx hardware.
> 

I had read about it on a libpcap forum a while ago (it wasn't an ipw2x00 
issue that was being discussed); I never looked into the root cause of 
it since I figured it was 'just the way it was'.

If you turn it off, does the # of packets captured improve w/ the ipw2200?

James