Hello,
We use the Ath9k driver for our 802.11 research projects. We transmit
every frame using a new transmission rate (MCS, short GI, HT20/40). We
cycle through all different rates (96 rates in our 3x3:3 testbed).
We noticed that when we change the transmission configuration (i.e. from
Short G
Hello,
I have a few questions about the operation of Minstrel_ht. I couldn't
find a good reference that
explains minstrel_ht. I tried to understand it by reading the code. The
fact that frame aggregation
was added to the picture confuses me a bit. I understand the multirate
retry chain in Mins
Hello,
I am interested to know if we can send multiple packets (non-aggregated,
single packets) and then ask
for a block ACK? I like to know if this functionality has been
implemented in ath9k or if
it is possible to achieve this with slight code modifications.
What I need:
Frame-SIFS-Frame-SIF
Hello,
We study the effects of 802.11n frame aggregation on throughput. We
noticed a
strange pattern in the MPDU loss within an aggregated frame. It seems
that the
second half of the MPDUs (those with higher sequence numbers) in an
aggregated frame
are more likely to be lost. Is this a known fa
at 9:04 PM, Ali Abedi <mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca>> wrote:
Hello,
We study the effects of 802.11n frame aggregation on throughput. We
noticed a
strange pattern in the MPDU loss within an aggregated frame. It seems
that the
second half of the MPDUs (those wi
ring the
> duration of a packet, the tail end is going to end up having less SNR
> and may end up getting more errors.
>
>
> -adrian
>
> On 24 October 2014 09:04, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> We study the effects of 802.11n frame aggregation on throughput
,
Ali
On 25/10/2014 11:19 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 24 October 2014 13:42, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> We don't use a rate adaptation at this moment (i.e., fixed rate) and the
>> setup
>> is stationary. So we expect to see relatively stable channel conditions.
>> Eve
down initially
then it goes up again in the second portion of the packet.
Best,
Ali
On 25/10/2014 2:30 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 25 October 2014 08:28, Ali Abedi wrote:
Hi Adrian,
We have a high end spectrum analyzer. So we are sure there is no background
interference
We run our experimen
e interesting part is that with the start of the next frame error
rate goes down initially
then it goes up again in the second portion of the packet.
Best,
Ali
On 25/10/2014 2:30 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 25 October 2014 08:28, Ali Abedi
<mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca>wrote:
with FreeBSD right now.
>
> Do you get the same pattern on say, MCS0->MCS4 over a 4ms long aggregate
> frame?
>
>
> -adrian
>
> On 25 October 2014 13:35, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> Thank you for sharing the story.
>> Even if I consider interference as a possibility,
t; On 30 October 2014 08:48, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>>
>> We observed that this can happen for any rate for some SNR values.
>> If the SNR is strong enough for the given MCS this won't happen.
>> But when the SNR approaches the transition region wh
case except for the case
where the BA never came back, as you said.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Ali Abedi <mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca>> wrote:
Hello,
I have a few questions about the operation of Minstrel_ht. I couldn't
find a good reference that
expl
x27;t RTS frames shorter than RTS
threshold and therefore shouldn't the short retry limit control RTS
retransmission?
Regards,
Ali Abedi
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
. we
have tried various versions of ATH9K but we observed the same behavior,
Why the monitor mode interface on the sender client affects the
throughput? Is this a bug? We are almost sure that this is not a
performance limitation of our clients.
Thank you,
there is a context switch while
going back and forth !
This will decrease the throughput as the actual interface is getting
less time to sense the channel.
Thats what I think !
-
Abhinav Narain
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Ali Abedi <mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca>> wrote:
Hello,
o
25 Mbps. This is not a performance issue. The performance is unaffected
if monitor mode interface is enabled on the receiver (no monitor
interface on sender). I really appropriate your answer.
Regards,
Ali Abedi
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-
enabled on the sender.
Ali
On 10/23/2012 3:20 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 23 October 2012 12:06, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I asked this question once before but didn't get a satisfying answer. In
>> our experiments, with two laptops running Ath9k driver w
ng is that when I remove the monitor interface the
throughput remains the same (low). Isn't this a bug?
Thanks,
Ali
On 10/23/2012 4:51 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 23 October 2012 13:36, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> Thanks Adrian. But there is no problem on the receiver side I assume
>
Hello,
I record the 4 registers showing tx, rx, busy, and total cycles. In a
clean environment (checked with a spectrum analyzer) I expected to see
busy = tx + rx. however, we have found that actually busy = tx + rx +
constant. where this constant is rate dependent. For example for 54
Mbps, th
air busy, and thus not
> available for transmitting."
>
>
>
> Adrian
>
> On 27 October 2012 12:24, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I record the 4 registers showing tx, rx, busy, and total cycles. In a
>> clean environment (checked with a spectr
We set retry to 1 and I have checked there is no retries at all. I would
appreciate if you ask because we need to figure out what's going on.
Ali
On 10/28/2012 2:25 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 27 October 2012 16:50, Ali Abedi wrote:
>> Thanks for the answer.
>> In this
Thank you. The plot I posted before shows dependency between
transmission rate and difference between busy and rx+tx counters.
Can you please explain more how this diagram address this
observation.
Best,
Ali
On 11/9/2012 4:34 PM, Adrian Chadd
wrote
ver. Those folks who know more about this
part of the driver may figure out what is going on after seeing this
solution.
Best,
Ali
On 23/10/2012 3:06 PM, Ali Abedi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I asked this question once before but didn't get a satisfying answer. In
> our experiments, wit
Hello everyone,
I am also interested in accessing CSI. Please update us as soon as you
got some good news.
Best,
Ali
On 13-04-02 08:18 AM, Nikolay Makarov wrote:
Dear Andres,
Adrian preliminary confirmed it is possible to get CSI out of
hardware. He helped me to send an internal request t
Hello,
Is there any update on how to access the channel state information?
Best regards,
Ali
___
ath9k-devel mailing list
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
Hello,
I have seen questions regarding the length of an AMPDU and how to change
the maximum AMPDU length.
However, I require to lock the AMPDU length at a specific value.
Changing the max length does not guarantee
that all AMPDUs have a fixed length, it can be anything between 1 to max
based on
ttp://lxr.free-electrons.com/ident?i=ath_tx_form_aggr>
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Ali Abedi <mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca>> wrote:
Hello,
I have seen questions regarding the length of an AMPDU and how to
change
the maximum AMPDU length.
However, I require to
ck if duration of packet is less tahn 4ms
for ur MCS) and with nearly zero noise losses.
Kamran
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Ali Abedi <mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca>> wrote:
These mostly determine the MAX AMPDU length. I also want to
determine the minimum length, so
that
form_aggr().
BR,
Shinnazar
--- Original Message ---
*From : *Ali Abedi< a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca
<mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca> >
*To : *ath9k-de...@venema.h4ckr.net
<mailto:ath9k-de...@venema.h4ckr.net>
*CC : *
*Sent : *2014-01-2
ess" -u -t 10 -i 1 -b 50m -p 2. Hope this will help.
>
> BE,
> Shinnazar
>
> --- Original Message ---
> *From : *Ali Abedi< a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca >
> *To : *ath9k-devel< ath9k-de...@venema.h4ckr.net >
> *CC : *Kamran Nishat< kamran.nis...@gmai
stopping the loop.
One more thing there are some losses. In case of losses BlockAck
window BAW will stop aggregate from growing.
kamran
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Ali Abedi <mailto:a2ab...@uwaterloo.ca>> wrote:
Thanks for all the replies.
Sorry for not mentioning that I
31 matches
Mail list logo
