Hi, Bob
Thanks for the comments.
> Question: did this work much better with a previous kernel,
> or does it just perform poorly in all kernels tried?
>
>
Kernel 2.6.30.7 (+ compat-wireless-2009-0820 )
I have not tried other version of kernel yet.
regarding "a previous kernel", I can also try ke
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 05:30:28PM +0200, thus spake Ignacy Gawedzki:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:59:16AM -0400, thus spake Bob Copeland:
> > Note ath5k compared to madwifi does not have automatic noise
> > immunity so it is expected to perform somewhat poorly at
> > higher rates.
>
> And what do
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:59:16AM -0400, thus spake Bob Copeland:
> Question: did this work much better with a previous kernel,
> or does it just perform poorly in all kernels tried?
Hmmm good question. Both AR5213A are on 2.6.31.4, while the AR5424 is on
2.6.30.1. I could try with an older ker
Hello all,
I have a configuration with two Atheros NICs (AR5212). To evaluate whether
ath5k is now good enough to replace Madwifi I run the current wireless-testing
branch and did some tests:
One interface (wlan0) is in IBSS mode joined to another host. I run iperf in
both directions simultaneou
2009/10/20 海藻敬之 :
> Hi, Ignacy and all
>
>> So it seems that there's something wrong with the way the ath5k receives the
>> frames, independently of the mode (or so it appears).
>>
>> Something to do with the noise floor calibration perhaps?
> My results also agrees to this conclusion.
> In my ca
