On 2013-06-01, Lars Nooden <lars.noo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are there any big reasons not to choose ral(4) over ath(4) for a host > ap? I've been trying out three wireless cards on -current as host access > points. So far it seems that ral(4) works better, but is quite weak on > the overall range in mode 11g as compared to 11a. > > One message earlier on misc suggested ral(4) as better for an access > point. [2] The info on Wikipedia about drivers[3], if it's accurate, > suggests that ral has more help from the vendors. > > Regards, > /Lars > > [1] ath0 at pci0 dev 17 function 0 "Atheros AR5413" rev 0x01: irq 15 > ath0: AR5413 10.5 phy 6.1 rf 6.3, ETSI1W, address 00:15:61:x:x:x > > ath0 at pci0 dev 17 function 0 "Atheros AR5212" rev 0x01: irq 15 > ath0: AR5213A 5.9 phy 4.3 rf5112a 3.6, FCC2A*, address a8:54:b2:x:x:x > > ral0 at pci0 dev 17 function 0 "Ralink RT2561S" rev 0x00: irq 15, > address > 00:12:0e:x:x:x > ral0: MAC/BBP RT2561C, RF RT5225 > > [2] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&w=2&r=1&s=ral+or+ath&q=b > > [3] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers#OpenBSD > >
IIRC, range on RT2860 is *much* better than 2561S. If you're buying something new, athn is usually the best choice, it is available in minipci as well as minipcie.
