On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <t...@toke.dk> wrote:
> Luca Muscariello <luca.muscarie...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes: > > > I don't fully understand your plots but it would be useful to report > > the physical rate of the stations. > > Yes, well, there's not really one rate to report for each station, since > Minstrel jumps about a bit and tries different ones. > > I know. Try a simple case, one STA very close one far away. I am able to get quite stable average PHY rates with minstrel. 5GHz and a free channel can also help to get low variance in your numbers. A Faraday cage can also help :) . > > As a benchmark, if you know the physical rates assuming they are also > > optimally chosen (by minstrel for instance ) and stations don't move, > > the long term throughout can be computed ( e.g. for TCP ) assuming air > > time fairness. Than you can understand if your gain is what you should > > expect or if the implementation is not yet done. > > So far I've just been looking at the figures for airtime (the first > graph in the blog post). These are the same numbers that the scheduler > uses to make scheduling decisions. It seems like the scheduler does help > somewhat, but is not perfect yet. Am definitely lacking a good ground > truth to compare against, though. Computing the expected throughput > might be possible, since minstrel does report statistics for how many > packets were transmitted at each rate. Will look into it; thanks for the > suggestion :) > > -Toke >
_______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
