From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Hofmann Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:30:52 +0200 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [PATCH/RFC] ath9k PER/ratecontrol In-Reply-To: References: <1303983401-28884-1-git-send-email-andreas.hofmann@corscience.de> Message-ID: <4DBABD8C.7050501@corscience.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org Hi Mohammed, On 29.04.2011 09:00, Mohammed Shafi wrote: > hi, > I don't know much about rate control, but this probe > interval 50 should have been fixed by the team which had formulated > this algorithm and I hope it might definitely have some meaning. > *Its true that increasing the probe interval will definitely improve > Video traffic(based on some inputs from an Engineer) but it looks 2s > is too high for the probe interval. > *when the channel conditions are poor (or) when the range is high, its > important that the rate control gets down into some lower rate as > quick as possible but when we have 2seconds won't it affect that? I did not do extensive testing with different values for the interval, only 1 second, 2 seconds and 5 seconds. From these values, 2 secs yielded the best results. From my understanding, the interval only controls probing rates higher than the current rate, not falling back to lower ratesn.In that case, a higher interval would actually be better, since unnecessary packet drops due to too frequent use of MCSs not suited for the channel would be reduced. Kind regards, Andreas