From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
To: Paul Stewart <pstew@google.com>
Cc: Sujith Manoharan <sujith@msujith.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ath9k: remove ath9k_rate_control
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:53:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51152D9E.1040106@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMcMvsjE=NNqt_q=vepZbFE8vwLypN2qZwyXg=aCBj3vvYOpMw@mail.gmail.com>
On 2013-02-08 5:38 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Could you share some of the test results? I know with ChromeOS when
> we switched to 3.4, the first thing that tipped us off to the fact
> that we had inadvertently switch to minstrel was that our RvR
> throughput values had dropped significantly. Has anyone done an RvR
> comparison between minstrel and the ath9k internal rate control
> lately?
Are you sure it was minstrel_ht, or could it also have been minstrel
(the legacy version)? I don't have any recent RvR test results, however
on every single link that I tested both rate control modules on (leaving
everything else unchanged), minstrel_ht got slightly better results.
Additionally, I occasionally get asked for help on debugging low
throughput issues, and many of the people asking me have reported that
simply switching to minstrel_ht fixed these issues in their tests.
I would also like to see some real RvR tests comparing both, preferably
before this gets merged, which is why I sent it as RFC.
- Felix
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-08 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-08 13:13 [RFC] ath9k: remove ath9k_rate_control Felix Fietkau
2013-02-08 13:30 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-02-08 14:04 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-02-08 14:06 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-02-08 14:08 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-02-08 14:16 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-02-08 16:38 ` Paul Stewart
2013-02-08 16:53 ` Felix Fietkau [this message]
2013-02-27 19:20 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2013-02-28 2:21 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-02-28 3:24 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-02-28 3:54 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-02-28 4:32 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-02-28 5:08 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-03-01 14:31 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-03-01 15:35 ` Ben Greear
2013-03-01 21:23 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-03-01 21:28 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-03-02 2:19 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-03-02 5:40 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-03-02 8:26 ` Georgiewskiy Yuriy
2013-03-02 20:23 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-03-03 3:58 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-02-28 11:47 ` Bob Copeland
2013-02-28 13:09 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-02-28 18:53 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-02-28 19:07 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-03-01 1:23 ` Sujith Manoharan
2013-03-01 10:09 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-03-01 3:53 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-03-01 10:14 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-03-01 10:22 ` Adrian Chadd
2013-03-01 10:29 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-03-01 11:18 ` Mohammed Shafi
2013-03-01 11:31 ` Felix Fietkau
2013-03-01 12:32 ` Mohammed Shafi
2013-03-01 13:05 ` Felix Fietkau
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=51152D9E.1040106@openwrt.org \
--to=nbd@openwrt.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=pstew@google.com \
--cc=sujith@msujith.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).