[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Michael Mee" <mm2001 at pobox dot com>
 To:  "Barry Murphy" <barry at unix dot co dot nz>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Bandwidth restriction of hostap
 Date:  Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:00:51 -0800
> wi0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> wi1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500

It appears you have both radios in one box, right?

if so, you may be running afoul of the same problems nocat saw in their
deployment in Senoma County. I researched this recently with them as part of
our "Standard AP" research www.socalfreenet.org/standardap and summarized
most of the postings (including links back to the source email lists) at
http://socalfreenet.org/node/view/65#5 and elsewhere on that page. See also
the threads that continue from the referenced messages (such as
http://lists.nocat.net/pipermail/nocatnet/2004-January/002468.html).

The bottom line is that nocat found that having two radio cards in one box
(Senao or miniATX), or even two APs close together, halved the throughput of
a relay / AP link. Separating them by a few feet mostly fixes the problem.

Hope this helps!  Based on the info above we decided to use separate boxes
on our recent install (see picture here
http://socalfreenet.org/node/view/144).  But what we haven't done yet is
measure total throughput (still messing with interference on our relay
link).  I'll be out that way tomorrow so if I get a chance I'll try it
anyway just to see.

cheers, michael