From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 28 21:04:27 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698BC16A401 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:04:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [69.12.149.25]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD9043D46 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:04:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [10.0.0.248] (trouble.errno.com [10.0.0.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.13.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k3SL4Pab049856 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:04:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <44528359.1030304@errno.com> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:04:25 -0700 From: Sam Leffler User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060210) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AT Matik References: <7.0.1.0.1.20060428134316.01e05648@live555.com> <200604281755.12871.asstec@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <200604281755.12871.asstec@matik.com.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel: ath0: device timeout X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:04:27 -0000 AT Matik wrote: > On Friday 28 April 2006 17:48, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> I've been seeing quite a few of these (on FreeBSD 6.0-STABLE, as of a >> couple of weeks ago). This is with a Compex WLM54AG miniPCI card. >> >> Is this a known issue, and is a fix in the works? >> > > in my case it stopped when I compiled ath_rate_onoe instead of rate_sample as > well as I got much higher throughput and response times If changing the tx rate control algorithm really fixes it then that says sample may be handing back bogus rate codes. Since I can't make this happen someone else needs to dig. As to better performance, onoe is not especially good and I do not recommend it. However sample is too aggressive on up-shifting the tx rate and tends to vary the rate too quickly so can degrade performance when signal deteriorates. I have done extensive testing of all the rate control algorithms as well as a proprietary one and chose sample as the default. However none are anywhere near as effective as the proprietary one. Sam