From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault@free.fr>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>,
Derek Smithies <derek@indranet.co.nz>,
ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, wally@theblackmoor.net,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] Unusually low speeds with ath5k and iwl3945
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:43:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <492A7733.2000205@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <492A5913.3070007@free.fr>
Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
> I did a similar test here and results is very strange. AP was my good
> old linksys WRT54G running an iperf server. Client was a laptop running
> either ath5k or madwifi/trunk and an iperf client. Channel is 5. Both
> drivers show the same behaviour.
>
> At the beginning, throughput was very low : 500 - 600 kbit/s. Suddenly
> (after few minutes), it jumps to 15 - 17 Mbit/s and then few minutes
> later (let's say 10 - 20 minutes maybe), it jumps back to 500 - 600
> kbit/s. Using a fixed rate has no effect.
>
> I used my latest wireless monitoring tools and I did not saw lost of
> duplicates or lost packets. The only difference was the number of
> packets sent by seconds....
>
> Looking a my syslog, I just saw few messages, unrelated in time with the
> throughput going up or down. They were:
> - ath5k : unsupported jumbo
> - switching to short barker preamble
> - switching to long barker preamble
>
> I can repeat the same test with iwl3945 as well, if needed.
While reading the code for calculating the frame duration, i noticed
something odd: It doesn't seem to be taking into account the short
vs long preamble distinction for ERP rates. IMHO this might be causing
issues like this. I've seen similar behaviour a long time ago when testing
iwl3945 against a Broadcom AP with exactly the same throughput drop (500-
600 kbits/s).
When I analyzed the problem with an extra monitor mode card, I found out
that the throughput drop is caused by a huge number of retransmissions,
and if I remember correctly (I didn't look for this specifically back then),
the retransmissions went down the rate scaling table until they hit the
first non-ERP rate and that one worked on the first try.
Johannes, does that sound like a probable cause? If so, it should be easy
to fix.
- Felix
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault@free.fr>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>,
Derek Smithies <derek@indranet.co.nz>,
ath5k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, wally@theblackmoor.net,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] Unusually low speeds with ath5k and iwl3945
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:43:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <492A7733.2000205@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <492A5913.3070007@free.fr>
Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
> I did a similar test here and results is very strange. AP was my good
> old linksys WRT54G running an iperf server. Client was a laptop running
> either ath5k or madwifi/trunk and an iperf client. Channel is 5. Both
> drivers show the same behaviour.
>
> At the beginning, throughput was very low : 500 - 600 kbit/s. Suddenly
> (after few minutes), it jumps to 15 - 17 Mbit/s and then few minutes
> later (let's say 10 - 20 minutes maybe), it jumps back to 500 - 600
> kbit/s. Using a fixed rate has no effect.
>
> I used my latest wireless monitoring tools and I did not saw lost of
> duplicates or lost packets. The only difference was the number of
> packets sent by seconds....
>
> Looking a my syslog, I just saw few messages, unrelated in time with the
> throughput going up or down. They were:
> - ath5k : unsupported jumbo
> - switching to short barker preamble
> - switching to long barker preamble
>
> I can repeat the same test with iwl3945 as well, if needed.
While reading the code for calculating the frame duration, i noticed
something odd: It doesn't seem to be taking into account the short
vs long preamble distinction for ERP rates. IMHO this might be causing
issues like this. I've seen similar behaviour a long time ago when testing
iwl3945 against a Broadcom AP with exactly the same throughput drop (500-
600 kbits/s).
When I analyzed the problem with an extra monitor mode card, I found out
that the throughput drop is caused by a huge number of retransmissions,
and if I remember correctly (I didn't look for this specifically back then),
the retransmissions went down the rate scaling table until they hit the
first non-ERP rate and that one worked on the first try.
Johannes, does that sound like a probable cause? If so, it should be easy
to fix.
- Felix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-24 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-21 20:28 Unusually low speeds with ath5k and iwl3945 Maxim Levitsky
2008-11-21 20:28 ` Maxim Levitsky
2008-11-22 0:52 ` Bob Copeland
2008-11-22 0:52 ` Bob Copeland
2008-11-22 3:46 ` [ath5k-devel] " Derek Smithies
2008-11-22 3:46 ` Derek Smithies
2008-11-22 12:33 ` Maxim Levitsky
2008-11-22 12:33 ` Maxim Levitsky
2008-11-24 7:34 ` Benoit PAPILLAULT
2008-11-24 7:34 ` Benoit PAPILLAULT
2008-11-24 9:43 ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
2008-11-24 9:43 ` Felix Fietkau
2008-11-24 10:34 ` Johannes Berg
2008-11-24 10:34 ` Johannes Berg
2008-11-25 19:46 ` Benoit PAPILLAULT
2008-11-25 19:46 ` Benoit PAPILLAULT
2008-11-25 22:47 ` Felix Fietkau
2008-11-25 22:47 ` Felix Fietkau
2008-11-22 10:16 ` [ipw3945-devel] " Rafał Miłecki
2008-11-22 10:16 ` Rafał Miłecki
2008-12-03 16:55 ` reinette chatre
2008-12-03 16:55 ` reinette chatre
2008-12-03 17:09 ` Maxim Levitsky
2008-12-03 17:09 ` Maxim Levitsky
2008-12-03 17:36 ` reinette chatre
2008-12-03 17:36 ` reinette chatre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=492A7733.2000205@openwrt.org \
--to=nbd@openwrt.org \
--cc=ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org \
--cc=benoit.papillault@free.fr \
--cc=derek@indranet.co.nz \
--cc=ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maximlevitsky@gmail.com \
--cc=wally@theblackmoor.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.