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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.