-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi everybody!
I've recently switched from Ubuntu to Fedora 10 to escape a nasty
problem I'm having but without luck.
I have a DELL Inspiron 640m / e1405 notebook based on a Centrino
chipset with an Intel 3945abg WiFi card and my network connection is
p
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 07:57:26PM +0100, Phil Bieber wrote:
>
> Hi everybody!
> I've recently switched from Ubuntu to Fedora 10 to escape a nasty
> problem I'm having but without luck.
> I have a DELL Inspiron 640m / e1405 notebook based on a Centrino
> chipset with an Intel 3945abg WiFi card and
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 22:40, Nifty Fedora Mitch
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 07:57:26PM +0100, Phil Bieber wrote:
<--snip
> What MTU is being used? With ADSL try 1492.
snip-->
Hi!
I checked the MTU and it says 1500, I changed it and now the speed
test is better than the last time (~700kbi
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:34, Phil Bieber wrote:
<--snip-->
> I checked the MTU and it says 1500, I changed it and now the speed
> test is better than the last time (~700kbit/s up, 700kbit/s down). But
> still they are not the same or close to the Windows speeds
<--sni
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:10:20PM +0100, Phil Bieber wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 16:34, Phil Bieber wrote:
> <--snip-->
> > I checked the MTU and it says 1500, I changed it and now the speed
> > test is better than the last time (~700kbit/s up, 700kbit/s down). But
> >
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:01, Nifty Fedora Mitch
wrote:
<--snip-->
> I wonder if windows is finding a proxy...
> Many vendors give their proxy hardware an advantage.
>
> How are you measuring the link speed?
>
> Another trick might be to limit-rate with tools like wget (see the man page).
> Some
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Phil Bieber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:01, Nifty Fedora Mitch
> wrote:
> <--snip-->
>
>> I wonder if windows is finding a proxy...
>> Many vendors give their proxy hardware an advantage.
>>
>> How are you measuring the link speed?
>>
>> Another trick migh
Hi all!
Especially Hi to Tom!
Thanks for your help. I tried using the --limit-rate switch on wget and it
still wasnt using the while speed. Then I found my old USB Stick (Netgear
WG111), put some effort in getting the right firmware and all and now I'm
happily downloading the Fedora 10 32 Bit
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 09:14:08AM +0100, Phil Bieber wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> Especially Hi to Tom!
>
> Thanks for your help. I tried using the --limit-rate switch on wget and it
> still wasnt using the while speed. Then I found my old USB Stick (Netgear
> WG111), put some effort in getting the rig
urs - so I believe that this may boil down to the
current drivers in the Fedora kernel? The ipw2200 one is actually the
slowest - and 4965 whizzes along very nicely and a lot faster - and all are
basically the same setup!
Would be nice if others may be able to confirm this?
--
View this message
ing
WPA and rsync - so with a native speed of 54mbps that translates to just
under 7MB/s and therefore I am expecting about 3.5MB/s which is not too far
away from what I am getting from that machine - all the others are slower.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Poor-WiFi-Perfo
Mike Cloaked wrote:
>
>
> I have several laptops connecting to the same AP and all set up with F10
> with the same apparent configs the difference is that one has 3945,
> another 4965 a 3rd ipw2200 and the last one with an atheros based chip and
> they all see different speeds - the interesti
ces other than driver differences... but maybe
you know more about this than I do?
I use rsync regularly to run backups and to copy update rpms so I see these
numbers coming up with a lot of consistency.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Poor-WiFi-Performance-tp21655322p2177
Mike Cloaked wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Mike Cloaked wrote:
I have several laptops connecting to the same AP and all set up with F10
with the same apparent configs the difference is that one has 3945,
another 4965 a 3rd ipw2200 and the last one with an atheros based chip
and
;t achieve that as throughput
speed!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Poor-WiFi-Performance-tp21655322p21778019.html
Sent from the Fedora List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com
Mike Cloaked wrote:
>
>
> What I described was with the machines about 2 feet from the AP and all in
> the same location so I have a direct comparison - the signal strength at
> that location is showing upper 90's in percent. I can't think of any
> explanation for the differences other than driv
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Mike Cloaked wrote:
> >
>
> I think you misunderstand - ifconfig shows that the
> system should be handling 54M but the reality is that it
> doesn't achieve that as throughput speed!
I am a tad late to this thread. Have you done an `iwlist
scanning`? I fi
nfiguration.
>
> And, yes, I am defining performance as throughput in
> contrast to the depicted rate.
>
>
I am using NetworkManager connecting to the AP with WPA2 maybe you are
using a different scheme?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Poor-WiFi-Perfo
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Mike Cloaked wrote:
>
>
>
> homburg wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am a tad late to this thread. Have you done an `iwlist
> > scanning`? I find that I get better performance using a
> > channel without competition. I also find that I I get
> > better performance
like it is the same apart from you
setting up with bssid specific in each case.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Poor-WiFi-Performance-tp21655322p21780766.html
Sent from the Fedora List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@re
w if this is a relevant factor
or not until I test it.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Poor-WiFi-Performance-tp21655322p21781011.html
Sent from the Fedora List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https:/
On Sun, 2009-02-01 at 04:12 -0800, Mike Cloaked wrote:
> What I described was with the machines about 2 feet from the AP and
> all in the same location so I have a direct comparison - the signal
> strength at that location is showing upper 90's in percent.
At that distance I would have expected fu
overall signal quality indicator.
>
>
I am pretty sure that this is not the issue ... but it would be nice if
others might give their experiences of measured transfer throughput under
vaguely similar conditions. I'll run further tests when I get a chance.
--
View this message
23 matches
Mail list logo