From owner-freebsd-mobile Wed Dec 6 1: 2:51 2000 From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 6 01:02:49 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FDE37B400 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:02:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from dmlb.org ([62.253.135.85]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20001206090247.HDJM15992.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@dmlb.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:02:47 +0000 Received: from dmlb by dmlb.org with local (Exim 3.03 #1) id 143aTe-0001Bm-00; Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:03:02 +0000 Content-Length: 2794 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20001206154244.J20481@wantadilla.lemis.com> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:03:01 -0000 (GMT) From: Duncan Barclay To: Greg Lehey Subject: Re: ray committed Cc: Chris Yeoh , mobile@FreeBSD.ORG, Wesley Morgan , Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi Warner, On 06-Dec-00 Greg Lehey wrote: > On Tuesday, 5 December 2000 at 22:09:18 -0700, Warner Losh wrote: >> In message <20001206152332.A21187@wantadilla.lemis.com> Greg Lehey writes: >>> I discussed this with Chris Yeoh at Linuxcare last week. He has no >>> problems with packet loss; in fact, he considers them better in that >>> respect than the Orinoco cards. >> >> Interesting... Is that with the FreeBSd drivers, or the Linux ones? >> I'm definitely seeing major problems with the two cards here and none >> with the ZoomAir + Orinoco Gold. I wonder what is different between >> him and I. Rememeber that the Orinoco and Webgear cards use very different RF techniques that give rise to different range/interference rejection etc. Multipath is handled very differently, do you have a lot of other buildings within say 100m? Also, the Webgear cards seems to be not very well made. I've had a lot of reports of "bad" cards (two myself) out of the box - i.e. cards that are deaf. > These are the Linux drivers, so that's an obvious difference. He also > reports that the current Linux drivers are broken, so he's using an > older version. We run a number of cards at home now, and yes there is some packet loss but not much, I just tried 12MB of backup from a Win98 box with no packets lost. The other machine is about 50ft away, on another floor in my house. Try playing with the RTS_THRESH and Fragmentation parameters. These will both chop up the ethernet packets a bit. What does # raycontrol -i ray0 -o report for the clear channel noise level? I get 55 (not sure if thats hex). Using the -C option will print out the signal level and antenna cache. # raycontrol -i ray0 -C Slot 0: 00:00:8f:48:e4:04 7c,7c,75,71,6a,82,7d,78 0000000000000000 ... The hex digits with commas are the signal level. Higher is better. The binary string is what antenna was picked. It should be reasonably constant. I've not seen any evidence that packet loss is the driver fault (well I did write it!), what might be happening is poor parameter choices for the stuff raycontrol dumps out - the manuals were unclear and the different exisiting drivers (Linux/NetBSD) were all inconsistent. If you look in the header files, you'll see what choices I had. The entries marked Symbionics were from people at work that develop 802.11 protocol stacks/hardware and should be the "best" from understanding the standard - this is not the same as "best" for a particular installation. Duncan --- ________________________________________________________________________ Duncan Barclay | God smiles upon the little children, dmlb@dmlb.org | the alcoholics, and the permanently stoned. ________________________________________________________________________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message