Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:53426 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751421Ab2EaFS0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2012 01:18:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4FC6FF1B.7050201@candelatech.com> (sfid-20120531_071830_177093_608F71A4) Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:18:19 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sujith Manoharan CC: "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Ath9k performance testing results (AR9380) References: <4FC55443.4020003@candelatech.com> <20422.56339.579488.464864@gargle.gargle.HOWL> In-Reply-To: <20422.56339.579488.464864@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/30/2012 07:48 PM, Sujith Manoharan wrote: > Ben Greear wrote: >> I am not sure why there is such a big difference, but possibly >> sending wifi is harder than receiving it, and the Atom processor >> just can't keep up. > > I have a small Atom-based netbook, I'll try with it and see what numbers > can be seen. It's a pain to pry it open and bolt a different card, though. :) We had to install a hacked 'white-listed' BIOS to get a Lenovo laptop to even POST with an Atheros NIC in it, so if your NIC works w/out having to hack the BIOS, please let me know :) Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com