Return-path: Received: from mfe1.polimi.it ([131.175.12.23]:34013 "EHLO polimi.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751461AbXLEMRw (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:17:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:13:10 +0100 From: Stefano Brivio To: Stefano Brivio Cc: Holger Schurig , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "Nick Kossifidis" , "Mattias Nissler" , "John W. Linville" , "Johannes Berg" Subject: rc80211-pid: some tuning test results Message-ID: <20071205131310.6b4c232a@morte> (sfid-20071205_121806_595871_F3A3F02E) In-Reply-To: <20071205105230.0ecc56dc@morte> References: <1196622331.7472.4.camel@localhost> <20071204024146.15689ee3@morte> <40f31dec0712041405sb14243dw9ccb7509e6f58d8@mail.gmail.com> <200712050849.46760.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> <20071205105230.0ecc56dc@morte> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Here are some results from recent tests. Each test lasted for 30 seconds. Signal and noise figures have been provided by a prism2 card with an almost isotropic antenna. Throughput tests have been made with a bcm4309 card, b43 driver. Scenarios: #1: very weak signal (ranging from -88 to -86dBm), low noise (-98dBm) mostly produced by other devices in the area. High multi-path reflection provided by grounded metal boxes between the two STAs. The b43 device has been moved alternatively by 2cm to left and right, with an approximate speed of 0.5cm/s. #2: weak signal (-81dBm), very high noise (-86dBm) produced by a microwave oven cooking vegetables at 750W. Multi-path reflection and moving as above. #3: almost optimal conditions. Good signal (-43dBm) and low noise (-98dBm). No multi-path reflection. Only moving as above. Results: [all throughputs are in Mbps] imul idiv pf p i d sm_s sh_s sh_d thr1 thr2 thr3 1 8 25 15 10 20 3 1 1 1.300 0.055 14.40 1 8 25 15 10 20 3 0 1 0.108 0.473 16.69 1 8 25 15 10 20 3 0 0 0.745 0.190 12.17 1 8 15 15 10 20 3 1 1 1.190 0.249 17.51 1 8 15 15 10 20 3 0 1 0.624 0.134 13.80 1 8 15 15 10 20 3 0 0 0.912 0.419 12.02 1 8 5 15 10 20 3 1 1 1.370 1.180 12.06 1 8 5 15 10 20 3 0 1 0.875 0.264 11.92 1 8 5 15 10 20 3 0 0 0.739 0.971 11.76 1 8 25 15 10 15 3 1 1 1.170 0.099 18.04 1 8 25 15 10 15 3 0 1 0.797 0.296 11.93 1 8 25 15 10 15 3 0 0 0.617 0.222 11.55 1 8 15 15 10 15 3 1 1 1.690 1.380 11.19 1 8 15 15 10 15 3 0 1 1.030 0.205 16.80 1 8 15 15 10 15 3 0 0 1.190 0.062 17.07 1 8 5 15 10 15 3 1 1 2.450 0.221 12.46 1 8 5 15 10 15 3 0 1 1.610 0.193 18.16 1 8 5 15 10 15 3 0 0 2.320 0.349 17.94 1 8 25 15 15 20 3 1 1 1.690 0.790 12.38 1 8 25 15 15 20 3 0 1 0.968 0.918 17.50 1 8 25 15 15 20 3 0 0 1.160 0.134 11.59 1 8 15 15 15 20 3 1 1 1.670 0.223 16.83 1 8 15 15 15 20 3 0 1 0.734 0.164 12.28 1 8 15 15 15 20 3 0 0 1.740 0.316 11.94 1 8 5 15 15 20 3 1 1 0.886 0.620 17.00 1 8 5 15 15 20 3 0 1 0.567 0.212 18.11 1 8 5 15 15 20 3 0 0 1.080 0.089 12.13 1 8 25 15 15 15 3 1 1 0.627 0.458 14.00 1 8 25 15 15 15 3 0 1 0.521 0.617 12.07 1 8 25 15 15 15 3 0 0 1.180 0.098 11.82 1 8 15 15 15 15 3 1 1 1.450 0.366 17.40 1 8 15 15 15 15 3 0 1 1.190 0.724 13.53 1 8 15 15 15 15 3 0 0 1.250 0.627 18.28 1 8 5 15 15 15 3 1 1 0.997 0.379 13.59 1 8 5 15 15 15 3 0 1 0.550 0.240 11.68 1 8 5 15 15 15 3 0 0 1.340 0.136 17.37 The second block of results looks good. There we can find the first and third best results for scenario #1, best result for scenario #2, second and fourth best for #3. It looks like Mattias's first guess for PID coefficients was actually very accurate. -- Ciao Stefano