Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:46238 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752707Ab1CYNmf (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:42:35 -0400 Received: by fxm17 with SMTP id 17so1153740fxm.19 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4D8C9BC7.3090204@googlemail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:42:31 +0100 From: Dennis Borgmann MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "John W. Linville" CC: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Disabling ACKs with ath5k References: <4D8C4764.7060107@googlemail.com> <20110325131957.GA2242@tuxdriver.com> In-Reply-To: <20110325131957.GA2242@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello John, the goal would be to have a transmission as fast as possible while ignoring, if a packet reached its destination or not. I'd like to test wireless performance regarding transmission time in a dedicated environment. As far as I can see, backoff might already push the transmission times up quite a lot and if I'd even add the time of - worst case - 10 retransmissions, the transmission time of one packet will grow even more. It would be second-rank, if the packet reaches its destination. Loss of some packets is not a problem in my testbed. So I'd like to disable usage of ACKs in order to be off with the only problem - backoff. Disabling this would of course be nice, but I fear, that's far more work that just disabling ACKs. Dennis John W. Linville schrieb: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:42:28AM +0100, Dennis Borgmann wrote: > > >> Is there an interface to disable transmission of ACKs and on the other >> hand ignoring unreceived ACKs. It can be done with multicasting, but can >> it also be achieved by a setting with non-multicast-traffic? I am using >> ath5k. >> > > I'm curious, why do you want to do that? > >