So far for all you people who have complained about lousy ral(4) range or reception, only one of you has posted a dmesg (and even it was incomplete) and none of you have posted your interface config.
Don't let this interrupt your complain-fest, but if you want to move beyond whinging and start trying to figure out what the bad performing cards have in common then you know what you have to do... -d On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Anis Kadri wrote: > I have experienced the same problems with both ath(4) and ral(4) (minipci > cards). I tried to use different modes (B & G) and different settings > (channels, ..) and using an external antenna but the performance's still > lossy :-/ > for ral(4): g mode doesn't work very well for me (packet loss, ...) so i'm > sticking with b mode > for ath(4): changing the mode just causes the kernel to crash :/ so i used b > mode as well. > > I don't know if ath(4) works better than ral(4) for some of you. I heard it > has a better radio chipset but it is not documented. > > On 12/15/06, pedro la peu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://www.netgate.com/info/miniPCI/2511MPPLUS/2511MP_PLUS_Spec.pdf > > Receive sensitivity: -89dBm to -91dBm. > > > > http://soekris.kd85.com/pdf/ralabg.pdf > > Receive sensitivity: -70dBm to -84dBm.
