Richard Jonsson wrote:
> 
> I have tried these patches on 2.6.23-rc2 and find perceived performance to be 
> about the same as for the bcm4301 mac80211 driver. I use this script to 
> stresstest the connection:
> 
> iperf -c 192.168.0.1 -t 3600 > /dev/null &
> watch --interval .1 "dmesg|grep phy[0-9]|tail -n1 \
> && ifconfig eth1 \
> && iwconfig eth1 2>&1"
> 
> iwconfig:
> eth1      IEEE 802.11g  ESSID:"NETGEAR"
>           Mode:Managed  Frequency:2.442 GHz  Access Point: 00:0F:B5:3D:4B:E2
>           Bit Rate=2 Mb/s
>           Retry min limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr=2346 B
>           Encryption key:off
>           Link Quality=65/100  Signal level=-60 dBm  Noise level=-70 dBm
>           Rx invalid nwid:0  Rx invalid crypt:0  Rx invalid frag:0
>           Tx excessive retries:0  Invalid misc:0   Missed beacon:0
> 
> dmesg|grep "TX power"
> [  755.816434] bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Current TX power output: 10.25 dBm, 
> Desired 
> TX power output: 10.0 dBm
> [  763.339286] bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Current TX power output: 9.0 dBm, Desired 
> TX power output: 10.0 dBm
> [  770.840137] bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Current TX power output: 10.50 dBm, 
> Desired 
> TX power output: 10.0 dBm
> [  778.343126] bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Current TX power output: 9.0 dBm, Desired 
> TX power output: 10.0 dBm
> [  785.842109] bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Current TX power output: 10.50 dBm, 
> Desired 
> TX power output: 10.0 dBm
> [  793.347213] bcm43xx-phy0 debug: Current TX power output: 10.25 dBm, 
> Desired 
> TX power output: 10.0 dBm
> 
> Isn't Desired TX power supposed to adapt so that higher bitrates are 
> possible, 
> with Bit Rate going lower if that is not enough to keep a good connection?

It should, but this feature is not yet implemented. I have some test code to do 
this, but it is not 
ready. When it is, I'll send you a trial patch. Check if your system has a file 
names 
/sys/kernel/debug/bcm43xx/phyX/power_level. If it does, you can write new 
values for the Desired 
power into it. Values up to 18 are allowed.

> When next to AP I get 54Mbps when connection is idle or has low utilisation, 
> but when running iperf the Bit rate instantly changes to 1Mbps. While running 
> iperf it jumps between 1, 2, 5.5 and 11Mbps. When manually setting it to 54M 
> it will work with good thoughput. I think it fails at 11M and starts over 
> from 1 again.
> 
> Performance next to AP         (iperf -c 192.168.0.1):
> 1M    721K
> 2M    1.64M
> 5.5M  3.72M
> 6M    5.66M
> 9M    7.62M
> 11M   ---
> 12M   9.28M
> 18M   11.9M
> 24M   14.0M
> 36M   17.2M
> 48M   18.5M
> 54M   18.4M
> auto  451K
> 
> When 10 meters away from AP anything higher than 5.5 is unusable, often 5.5M 
> too.
> 
> 11M mode is unusable at all distances, 12M works fine. This probably breaks 
> rate scaling for me.

Yes, it certainly would. My 4311 shows a little dip at 11 Mbs, but not as big 
as yours. Is your AP 
using b/g mode, or just g mode? What is the make and model of the AP?

> "rmmod bcm43xx" when kde is running hangs rmmod and prevents a clean 
> shutdown. 
> I tried to find which program causes this while using bcm4301 driver, but so 
> far no luck. System shuts down fine if I don't try to rmmod first. rmmod 
> works fine from runlevel 3 aside from this message when inserting module 
> again:
> "net eth1: device_rename: sysfs_create_symlink failed (-17)"

On my system, I routinely unload the module using 'modprobe -r bcm43xx'. 
Sometimes, it happens 20 or 
30 times between reboots. These are always at runlevel 5. Only once or twice 
has it not completed. 
Are you using NetworkManager or using the traditional ifup/ifdown methods?
> 
> Nitpicking:
> When changing bitrate manually it will not show up with iwconfig before any 
> traffic has occured.

This is a mac80211 problem. My original version of the patch that implemented 
the "set rate" 
function loaded the new rate so that it would show up immediately, but that 
part was nixed. Complain 
on [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Sometimes iwconfig link quality shows values in the whole 0-255 range.

Do the Signal and Noise levels show -256 dBm at the same time? If so, mac80211 
has not received any 
data.

Larry
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev

Reply via email to