Return-path: Received: from smtp1.irobot.com ([206.83.81.187]:48368 "EHLO smtp1.irobot.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752127Ab0BARu6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:50:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4B67147E.6080800@irobot.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:50:54 -0800 From: Adam Wozniak MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joerg Pommnitz CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org Subject: Re: Significiant performance differences between ath5k and ath9k in 802.11a References: <774870.89795.qm@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <774870.89795.qm@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Your numbers for ath9k in the 5GHz band jibe with what I've observed for the ar9170 in ad-hoc mode. If you go down to 2.4GHz you'll see about 16MBit/s. I have no other numbers to offer for comparison. --Adam Joerg Pommnitz wrote: > Hello all, > I have a strange performance problem with ath9k. I have two otherwise identical systems with an ath5k-supported card in system ATH5K and an ath9k supported card in system ATH9K. > Doing an UDP iperf run were ATH5K is the client/sender and ATH9K is the server/receiver I easily get data rates of 31MBit/s (tx data rate on the sender is manually set to 54 MBit/s). > Running the same test with ATH9K as client/sender and ATH5K as server/receiver gives maximum data rates of about 22MBit/s, about 30% less. > > Doing the test against another ath9k system (e.g. ATH9K ==> ATH9K2) gives > the same max data rate of only 22 MBit/s, so the problem seems to be the > ath9k driver or the hardware. Can anybody confirm these problems? Is this > a known limitation? Any buttons to push to get things going faster? > > Details: > the ath5k card is a AR2413 based design (Compex WLM54AG), the ath9k card > is a AR9220 (Compex WLM200NX 6A). The systems are connected in IBSS mode > on channel 40 (5200MHz). > The kernel version is wireless-testing as of January, 26. The kernel is > slightly patched to enable IBSS in 802.11a (we are allowed to do this). > > Can anybody shed some light on this strange issue? Luis? > >