[Madwifi-devel] monotonically increasing ping times
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
otaku
Menu
▾
▴
[Madwifi-devel] monotonically increasing ping times
|
From: Derek S. <de...@in...> - 2004-08-16 05:22:31
|
Hi,
I wonder if someone has some clue as to why the ping times gradually
increase to 70ms, then reset to 1 ms.
My network consists of 5 nodes, operating in adhoc mode. I have given all
nodes a fixed BSSID, which is set (programmatically) in
ieee80211_create_ibss(struct ieee80211com* ic, struct ieee80211_channel *chan)
I observed the below ping times, and wondered what is going on.
=======
Then I tried setting the rts threshold to 300.
This helped. all ping times were good, and averaged 2ms.
However, approximately 25% of the pings were not replied to.
On different ping runs, we found different things. higher/lower loss rate,
increasing ping times with rts on (or not)....
Of note, the neighbour table (as reported by iwlist ath0 ap)
varied wildly. On three consecutive incantations of
iwlist ath0 ap the number of nodes listed could be 4, 2 none.
My question::
This variability: is it a function of radio environment changing?
surely not - all nodes are in the same room.
Is the driver "upset" because I hardcoded the merge?
Comment anyone ?
and thanks in advance for any help.
Derek.
-----
# ping -c 40 10.1.1.2
PING 10.1.1.2 (10.1.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=1.20 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.20 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=11.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=25.2 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=39.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=53.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=68.0 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.11 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.14 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=6.60 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=20.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=37.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=48.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=62.4 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=1.14 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=1.16 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=5.20 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=15.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=29.8 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=43.7 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=58.6 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=21 ttl=64 time=1.12 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=22 ttl=64 time=2.52 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=23 ttl=64 time=1.17 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=24 ttl=64 time=11.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=25 ttl=64 time=26.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=26 ttl=64 time=39.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=27 ttl=64 time=53.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=28 ttl=64 time=67.1 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=29 ttl=64 time=1.07 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=30 ttl=64 time=1.09 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=31 ttl=64 time=6.53 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=32 ttl=64 time=20.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=33 ttl=64 time=34.5 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=34 ttl=64 time=48.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=35 ttl=64 time=62.3 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=36 ttl=64 time=1.09 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=37 ttl=64 time=1.10 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=38 ttl=64 time=1.90 ms
64 bytes from 10.1.1.2: icmp_seq=39 ttl=64 time=15.8 ms
--- 10.1.1.2 ping statistics ---
40 packets transmitted, 40 received, 0% packet loss, time 39383ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.074/23.223/68.043/22.736 ms, pipe 2
-----
--
Derek Smithies Ph.D. This PC runs pine on linux for email
IndraNet Technologies Ltd. If you find a virus apparently from me, it has
Email: de...@in... forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine
ph +64 3 365 6485 Please do not notify me when (apparently) receiving a
Web: http://www.indranet-technologies.com/ windows virus from me......
|