RH 8.0 and hostap 10-12

[Peter Buelow]

  Interesting, but if that's true, I would think 5Mb/s would be too high.
My experience with 10Mb/s ethernet, even with the best drivers and
lowest overhead equipment, is that you get a little above 9 Mb/s actual
transfer rate (TCP, not raw ethernet). I would assume that this
would/should be a little bit lower (is there extra overhead for
wireless? and I assume the driver isn't perfect yet). So, if it's half
duplex, then I would expect maybe 80% of that in ideal testing
conditions. I'm really seeing 90% according to netperf (assuming 5.5Mb/s
each way), so this makes me wonder a little bit. I'm not questioning,
but I would love to understand this all a little bit better. Thanks for
the info.

> On zo, nov 24, 2002 at 09:34:32 -0600, Peter Buelow wrote:
>> Quick question though. I get about 5mbs a sec using netperf with
>> default  options and an MTU of 1500. This is about 4 feet from the
>> antenna, so  link quality is excellent (92%). Really, even in my
>> bedroom (50ft), same  rate. I know that on an 11mbs connection, all 11
>> isn't possible, but I  was wondering if there are tuning options to
>> make up some of the other  half I'm not getting? Maybe a different
>> MTU, or some fun with iwconfig  or the driver? Just curious, as I
>> haven't seen anything in the message  archives recent about this.
>> Thanks in advance.
>
> My own personal experience is that 5.5MBit/s is the best 802.11b can do.
> It's an 11MBit protocol, but it's 11MBit *half duplex*.  This means
> 5.5MBit/s each direction.  IIRC, the polling mechanism used in 802.11b
> does not adapt to suit the needs of the current traffic flow.  This is
> one of the reasons I'm looking forward to 802.16. =)
>
> Of course, if anyone suggests a way to hack it to work, I'd love to
> know.
>
> Mark


-- 
"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety
deserveneither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
--
Peter Buelow
pete at putzin.net