On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 15:21 -0200, Aloisio wrote: > On 11/6/06, Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > However, this is never going to be a solution because what's the upper > > bound? If you're at the margins of the network, maybe 1/2 your packets > > get lost during the handshakes and assoc/auth, and the association takes > > a really long time. The delay is already something like 40 seconds, and > > that's _waaay_ too long already. If you cannot associate to your > > network within 20 seconds, you either need to be closer to your AP or > > you need to get your network admin to fix stuff. > > Yes, I agree. But using nm I get connection some times (after lot of > tries) and after this the connection is stable. The problem is getting > connection and not keep connected... So I guess that the problem is > not only the signal quality, but the set: low quality + lot os APs + > hidden SSID. > > > At the same time, moving NM to talking to wpa_supplicant over DBus will > > eliminate a lot of the overhead of the current socket-based method, and > > also remove the lag when spawning a copy of wpa_supplicant. So there's > > definitely room to take the latency of the connection down in > > NetworkManager itself. But perpetually increasing the connection > > timeout because "it's just not long enough for my situation" isn't the > > right answer in the medium or long run. > > I'm using CVS version, it's already using DBus, right?
No, not yet. > Aloisio > > > Dan > > > > > Thanks > > > Aloisio > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NetworkManager-list mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list > > > > _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
