From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: [ath9k-devel] Significiant performance differences between ath5k and ath9k in 802.11a
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B629AF5.40706@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <256732.66854.qm@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
On 2010-01-29 9:10 AM, Joerg Pommnitz wrote:
> --- rootkit85 at yahoo.it <rootkit85@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you try in AP-client mode? I think you'll get more
>> throughput so.
>>
>
> No, IBSS is what I'm interested in. And the point is, that there is
> a 30% performance difference between ath5k (and Madwifi) and ath9k. Even
> if the performance in AP mode would be better, this does not change the
> problem in IBSS mode.
I can confirm these numbers for AP/Client mode as well. I've even tested
legacy communication between ath9k ap and sta, producing the same
result. Additionally, I can rule out the rate control algorithm, as
using minstrel instead of the ath9k RC produces a very similar
throughput test result.
- Felix
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Joerg Pommnitz <pommnitz@yahoo.com>
Cc: rootkit85@yahoo.it, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org, ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org
Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] Significiant performance differences between ath5k and ath9k in 802.11a
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B629AF5.40706@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <256732.66854.qm@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
On 2010-01-29 9:10 AM, Joerg Pommnitz wrote:
> --- rootkit85@yahoo.it <rootkit85@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you try in AP-client mode? I think you'll get more
>> throughput so.
>>
>
> No, IBSS is what I'm interested in. And the point is, that there is
> a 30% performance difference between ath5k (and Madwifi) and ath9k. Even
> if the performance in AP mode would be better, this does not change the
> problem in IBSS mode.
I can confirm these numbers for AP/Client mode as well. I've even tested
legacy communication between ath9k ap and sta, producing the same
result. Additionally, I can rule out the rate control algorithm, as
using minstrel instead of the ath9k RC produces a very similar
throughput test result.
- Felix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-29 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-28 15:13 [ath9k-devel] Significiant performance differences between ath5k and ath9k in 802.11a Joerg Pommnitz
2010-01-28 15:13 ` Joerg Pommnitz
2010-01-28 16:12 ` [ath9k-devel] " rootkit85 at yahoo.it
2010-01-28 16:12 ` rootkit85
2010-01-29 8:10 ` Joerg Pommnitz
2010-01-29 8:10 ` Joerg Pommnitz
2010-01-29 8:23 ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
2010-01-29 8:23 ` Felix Fietkau
2010-01-29 8:46 ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2010-02-04 8:31 ` Joerg Pommnitz
2010-02-04 8:31 ` Joerg Pommnitz
2010-02-01 17:50 ` Adam Wozniak
2010-02-01 17:50 ` Adam Wozniak
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=4B629AF5.40706@openwrt.org \
--to=nbd@openwrt.org \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
/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.