Tests of the workaround are promising. There is still some packet lost
but not so huge as at beginning:
Pings from router to laptop without AC connected:
ping 192.168.1.109
PING 192.168.1.109 (192.168.1.109): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=1 ttl=64 time=307.695 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=2 ttl=64 time=193.444 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=3 ttl=64 time=23.547 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.697 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=5 ttl=64 time=8.484 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=6 ttl=64 time=8.354 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=7 ttl=64 time=12.662 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=8 ttl=64 time=8.770 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.660 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=10 ttl=64 time=2.184 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=11 ttl=64 time=8.456 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=12 ttl=64 time=6.156 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=14 ttl=64 time=8.857 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=15 ttl=64 time=4.705 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=16 ttl=64 time=6.855 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=17 ttl=64 time=15.729 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=18 ttl=64 time=2.142 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=19 ttl=64 time=1.799 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=20 ttl=64 time=8.928 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=21 ttl=64 time=1.817 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=22 ttl=64 time=17.172 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=23 ttl=64 time=20.673 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=24 ttl=64 time=6.253 ms
^C
--- 192.168.1.109 ping statistics ---
25 packets transmitted, 23 packets received, 8% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 1.660/29.479/307.695 ms
And with AC power connected
PING 192.168.1.109 (192.168.1.109): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=0 ttl=64 time=244.862 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=1 ttl=64 time=37.266 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=2 ttl=64 time=4.443 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=3 ttl=64 time=6.346 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=4 ttl=64 time=10.193 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.550 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.684 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=7 ttl=64 time=6.418 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=8 ttl=64 time=7.776 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.634 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=10 ttl=64 time=2.215 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=11 ttl=64 time=2.966 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=12 ttl=64 time=3.531 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=13 ttl=64 time=8.816 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=14 ttl=64 time=3.583 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=15 ttl=64 time=2.153 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=16 ttl=64 time=5.354 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=17 ttl=64 time=65.839 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=18 ttl=64 time=11.129 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=19 ttl=64 time=2.272 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=20 ttl=64 time=7.299 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=21 ttl=64 time=3.393 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=22 ttl=64 time=1.832 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=23 ttl=64 time=4.414 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.109: seq=24 ttl=64 time=1.574 ms
^C
--- 192.168.1.109 ping statistics ---
25 packets transmitted, 25 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 1.550/17.941/244.862 ms
As you can see the packet loss is only on 8% so not that bad (2 lost on 25
transmitted) The time of response are similar (I was downloading a file from
router so this could increase the response time).
Will test that for a day or two and check also battery life but it is
looking good at the moment.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/795273
Title:
wlan0 issues with connection on battery
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/795273/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
