Subject: Re: ath seems still buggy
To: Marcin Jessa <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sam Leffler <email@example.com>
Date: 10/19/2005 09:21:04
Marcin Jessa wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:09:35 -0400
> Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 09:28:35AM +0000, Marcin Jessa wrote:
>>>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:29:35 -0400
>>>Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>: In fact, I'm typing this through a Soekris with an Atheros
>>>wireless : module in hostap mode right now.
>>>I did not mean occasional usage on a laptop but in real life
>>>enviroment running as AP with clients connected to it.
>>What part of "in hostap mode" did you miss?
> What part of "real life enviroment" did you miss?
> I am not talking of home-brewed small scale soekris boxes which are
> useless/too slow for any modern WLAN Access Point.
> An example of sysctl values letting boost up connection speed to
> 6Mbit/s on FreeBSD that I cannot setup on NetBSD:
Odd, that support is in the 0.9.14.9 hal that's in cvs. I noticed while
diff'ing that the tpc stuff wasn't in the driver but since that hal
doesn't do per-packet tpc correctly anyway it shouldn't matter. Turning
off diversity should reduce your performance; not improve it. I'd be
curious to see numbers for each change separately. It may be that the
antenna flipping logic is hurting you (it needs some fixups).
> Another one
> ifconfig ath0 protmod off
> ifconfig ath0 mtu 2290
I would be curious to see if you're actually getting frames close to the
mtu. I just realized recently that I allowed the larger mtu but I think
the driver tosses frames larger than a cluster because the logic isn't
in the rx intr handler to chain rx descriptors (it is in another version
of code where I need it for Atheros' fast frames).
Turning off protection presumably means you're operating in 11g and only
supporting 11g stations? If so there's a better way to do this; just
set the pureg config so 11b stations are rejected by the ap.