( sorry again for my last post which was corrupted. I do not why... some
coding issue.. please be patient. )
Lukas
thanks.
>> 2. still not good and unstable throughput for 2.4Ghz
>> thanks to your patch[3/5], [4/5], throughput was improved pretty much
>> but still staying around 10~15Mbps(1hop), 1
<<< text/html; charset=UTF-16BE: Unrecognized >>>
___
ath5k-devel mailing list
ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org
https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
On 23.12.2009 12:43 海藻敬之 wrote:
> 2. still not good and unstable throughput for 2.4Ghz
> thanks to your patch[3/5], [4/5], throughput was improved pretty much
> but still staying around 10~15Mbps(1hop), 1Mbps~6Mbps(2hops)
That's strange, those patches can't change anything... They modify a code tha
Thanks, Lukas
> According to my interpretation the calculation should depend
> on channel width (20MHz in normal mode, 40MHz in turbo mode, same for 802.11g
> and 802.11a), not on MAC chip clocks.
thanks, then my guess was irrelevant...
I got some improvement (even not so significant), but I mig
<<< text/html; charset=UTF-16BE: Unrecognized >>>
___
ath5k-devel mailing list
ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org
https://lists.ath5k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath5k-devel
