From owner-freebsd-mobile Wed Dec 6 10:21:42 2000 From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 6 10:21:39 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E3037B401 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:21:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (yogotech.nokia.com [4.22.66.156]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00660; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:20:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10693; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:53:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14894.32002.562845.683899@nomad.yogotech.com> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 10:53:06 -0700 (MST) To: Warner Losh Cc: Christopher Yeoh , Greg Lehey , Wesley Morgan , mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ray committed In-Reply-To: <200012060604.XAA76044@harmony.village.org> References: <14893.53324.616401.949125@rockhopper.linuxcare.com.au> <20001206152332.A21187@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200011130313.UAA03395@harmony.village.org> <200012060509.WAA75737@harmony.village.org> <20001206154244.J20481@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200012060604.XAA76044@harmony.village.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [ Orinoco vs. Zoom card experience ] > I could then take the laptop with the aviator upstairs to 1' of the > base station (which is just an intel box with an aviator card) and get > 0 throughput (which sounds like a driver problem). The really strange > part is that I can reboot both machines and still get horrible to zero > throughput. This points to "enemy action" of some sort. Are these radios 'Air' compatible with one another? If not, one may be using Spread Spectrum, and the other Frequency Hopping. In some experience I've experienced in my 'Day Job', the Spread Spectrum cards (Orinoco/WaveLan and clones) are *MUCH* (!!!) less suceptible to noise than the cards based on hopping technology. (802.11 allows for both). As a point of fact, my employer uses FH radios in their product, and my ISP uses the Wavelan stuff. Interestingly enough I had to shield my employer's product from the Wavelan stuff even though the Wavelan products are pushing a mile between sites. I would have assumed that the Wavelan cards would have the more difficult time because of the link-length losses, but the opposite is true. The Wavelan cards seems to be completely un-affected by the FH card noise, while the FH cards are wiped out by the SS cards. > I also have a wireless link with the older pre802.11 wavelan cards at > 2.4GHz to a friends house. Maybe that is impacting things. It > doesn't impact the 802.11b cards that I use. In my experience, the old 'non-802.11' cards seem to be less effected by noise than the newer cards, FWIW. Finally, multi-path can really screw you up when you get the radios close to one another. In our product, we have to use attenuators to get decent performance when the radios are close to one another. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message