[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Michael Iedema" <iedemam at pluto dot dsu dot edu>
 To:  "'Manuel Kasper'" <mk at neon1 dot net>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Some throughput testing
 Date:  Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:29:18 -0500
I'm guessing the speed increase would be due to the extra 33mhz you
possibly have.  I've always wondered if their effect would be linear,
and they seem close to that.

Anyone else tried this with a 4521?

--Michael



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel Kasper [mailto:mk at neon1 dot net] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:10 PM
> To: Michael Iedema
> Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Some throughput testing
> 
> 
> Hey Michael,
> 
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Michael Iedema wrote:
> 
> > Conditions			Throughput
> >
> > Standard w/o WEP		4.65
> > Standard w/WEP		3.99
> 
> I thought I'd add that I was able to obtain significantly 
> higher throughput with a PCI wireless card (D-Link DWL-520) 
> in a net4501 instead (non-WEP throughput of about 6.4 Mbps). 
> If memory serves me right, my PC card measurements were 
> consistent with yours. Seems like the overhead of moving the 
> data over the PC card bridge is quite high.
> 
> Interestingly, using hardware WEP in hostap mode doesn't make 
> things faster (at least not with a PCMCIA wireless card). I 
> hacked if_wi.c to make it use hardware WEP even in hostap (by 
> default it will always do software WEP as some cards seem to 
> be broken in hostap mode) - the speed gain was marginal (on 
> the order of 0.1-0.2 Mbps), although it did work (with a 
> Senao 200 mW card). The bottleneck is probably somewhere else...
> 
> - Manuel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>