From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.117]:37159 "EHLO mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030609AbXC2SLh (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:11:37 -0400 Message-ID: <460C0157.5030404@lwfinger.net> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:11:35 -0500 From: Larry Finger MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: John Linville , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, Michael Buesch Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: Change initialization for 2050 radios References: <460a92d5.+NfCgWddLCeb9ty2%Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> <1175188955.3122.42.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <460BFDF0.9010401@lwfinger.net> <1175191382.3122.44.camel@pmac.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1175191382.3122.44.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 12:57 -0500, Larry Finger wrote: >> Is the better performance for 11M in transmitting or receiving? How is >> it measured? My 4306's, which should be the same as yours, do better >> at 24M than at 11M. > > It's for 'scp shinybook:' -- it's not a particularly > good test. > > And in fact the 'normal' module seems to be performing quite well today > too. I think the real performance problem comes when there are dropped > packets. OK, you are measuring receive speed, which is nearly independent of Bit Rate. Do you have access to any other host on your LAN that could be an Iperf server, or that is an NFS server? Larry