[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201008131035.39922.helmut.schaa@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:35:39 +0200
From: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@...glemail.com>
To: Andreas <andihartmann@...19freenet.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@...il.com>,
Gertjan van Wingerde <gwingerde@...il.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rt61pci - bad performance
Hi Andreas,
Am Freitag 13 August 2010 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> (cc's added)
>
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:49:49 +0200
> Andreas <andihartmann@...19freenet.de> wrote:
[...]
> > wlan0 IEEE 802.11bg ESSID:"--------"
> > Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
> > Bit Rate=1 Mb/s Tx-Power=5 dBm
> > Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
> > Encryption key:off
> > Power Management:off
> > Link Quality=38/70 Signal level=-72 dBm
> > Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
> > Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
> >
> > The throughput is measured with ping -f -s 7000 and xosview -n.
This doesn't look like an appropriate way to measure the throughput. You
should use something like iperf [1] or netperf [2] for your measurements
to get more accurate results.
> > If I'm using ndiswrapper with the windows driver, first of all, I can
> > see additional information in iwconfig:
> >
> > wlan0 IEEE 802.11g ESSID:"--------"
> > Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412 GHz Access Point: some AP
> > Bit Rate=54 Mb/s Tx-Power:20 dBm Sensitivity=-121 dBm
> > RTS thr=2347 B Fragment thr=2346 B
> > Encryption key:some key Security mode:restricted
> > Power Management:off
> > Link Quality:62/100 Signal level:-56 dBm Noise level:-96 dBm
> > Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
> > Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
> >
> >
> > There is a switch for sensitivity (which is not supported with rt61pci)
> > and the link quality compared with ndiswrapper is worse (38% to 62%).
I wouldn't trust the link quality values that much, the calculation in rt61pi
is most likely different from what the windows driver does. So it is not
really comparable.
> > The following is remarkably too:
> > ndiswrapper uses a Tx-Power of 20 dBm, rt61pci only 5 dBm. I don't know,
> > why rt61pci uses 5 dBm. It's a hard limit and I can't set it on a value
> > higher than 5 unless the driver is patched. Nevertheless, setting a
> > higher value (of 20 dBm) by patch does not mean to get a better performance.
Could you elaborate please? Did you actually try to patch it or is this just
an assumption?
> > Ndiswrapper shows an encryption key, rt61pci not. Does it mean, that
> > rt61pci doesn't use hardware encryption?
hw crypto should be enabled by default in rt61pci, however, I don't know
if it is actually working ;)
> > With ndiswrapper, the rt61pci-chip achieves a throughput of 2,6 MBytes/s
> > - that's about 1 MByte/s more than rt61pci.
> >
> > I have to say, that the difference between rt61pci and ndiswrapper gets
> > worse if the link quality is getting more badly. Or in other words:
> > ndiswrapper handles bad connections better then rt61pci.
> >
> >
> > Do you have any idea to get rt61pci working as fast as ndiswrapper?
Please run proper measurements first and post the results again.
Thanks,
Helmut
[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/
[2] http://www.netperf.org/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists