On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 05:37:00 -0800, Mitar wrote:
Hi!
Maybe you could perform some more tests in this direction at the next
WBM in Athens?
I don't think any of us are going to Athens.
No? How come? Why?
I'm wondering the same :(:(:(
From the participant list it seems that all
I don't think any of us are going to Athens.
No? How come? Why?
Gabriel and I are busy -- we're hard at work wrapping up some stuff
we've been working on for the last four years, we hope to finish soon.
I cannot speak for the others.
There Ain't No Cabal, if that's what you mean. However, in
Hi!
However, in my personal case, there's also the fact that WBM has been
evolving in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with (less
technical content, more self- promotion, tolerance for bomb-makers,
etc.)
Self-promotion of good ideas is not necessary bad. And others are there
to
Hey there,
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 09:02:54AM -0700, Mitar wrote:
Hi!
However, in my personal case, there's also the fact that WBM has been
evolving in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with (less
technical content, more self- promotion, tolerance for bomb-makers,
etc.)
That was our intuition too, but experiments we did in Brussels using
802.11n multiradio routers, with Benjamin and Juliusz, seemed to show
that packet loss (as measured by babel at least) is not always
correlated to throughput. I do not claim to understand how this is
possible.
It's not
Maybe you could perform some more tests in this direction at the next
WBM in Athens?
I don't think any of us are going to Athens.
-- Juliusz
Hi!
Maybe you could perform some more tests in this direction at the next
WBM in Athens?
I don't think any of us are going to Athens.
No? How come? Why?
Mitar
Consider the following topology (all links assumed lossless), where
we're trying to route from A to S:
B---C
/ \\
/ \\
A S
\/
\ /
B'---*C' (C' has just a single interface)
In Babel, even with just Z1,the diversity
The metric is simply based on TQ. C=S will probably have a better
local TQ than C'-S because of the load balancing over the two links,
Sorry for the confusion, I used « = » to mark a different frequency than
« - ». There's only the one link between C and S, it's just using
a different
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 02:10:02PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The metric is simply based on TQ. C=S will probably have a better
local TQ than C'-S because of the load balancing over the two links,
Sorry for the confusion, I used « = » to mark a different frequency than
« - ».
-Original Message-
From: battlemesh-boun...@ml.ninux.org [mailto:battlemesh-
boun...@ml.ninux.org] On Behalf Of Juliusz Chroboczek
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List
Cc: b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org
Subject: Re: [Battlemesh] Diversity in
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM, andrew.l...@ascom.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: battlemesh-boun...@ml.ninux.org [mailto:battlemesh-
boun...@ml.ninux.org] On Behalf Of Juliusz Chroboczek
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List
Cc:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 22:07:37 Benjamin Henrion wrote:
C=S will probably have a better TQ if it is not getting as much
interference due to collisions. A will get to know about this in the
path TQ. Better still, B-C will also probably have a better TQ, since
the link C=S is not
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Marek Lindner lindner_ma...@yahoo.de wrote:
On Friday, March 09, 2012 22:07:37 Benjamin Henrion wrote:
C=S will probably have a better TQ if it is not getting as much
interference due to collisions. A will get to know about this in the
path TQ. Better still,
With such metric, you don't make any difference between a 56K
telephone line and a 10Ge NIC.
If you 10Ge has 5pc packet loss and your 56K line has 0pc, your TQ
will be prefer the 56k link.
If my 10Ge has 5% packet loss, its broken. I don't want to use
it. Falling back to the 56K link is the
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Lunn and...@lunn.ch wrote:
With such metric, you don't make any difference between a 56K
telephone line and a 10Ge NIC.
If you 10Ge has 5pc packet loss and your 56K line has 0pc, your TQ
will be prefer the 56k link.
If my 10Ge has 5% packet loss, its
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:07:37PM +0100, Benjamin Henrion wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Lunn and...@lunn.ch wrote:
With such metric, you don't make any difference between a 56K
telephone line and a 10Ge NIC.
If you 10Ge has 5pc packet loss and your 56K line has 0pc, your
So when comparing a 1Mbps and a 54Mbps link, probably the TQ for the
54Mbps link will be better than the 1Mbps link.
That was our intuition too, but experiments we did in Brussels using 802.11n
multiradio routers, with Benjamin and Juliusz, seemed to show that packet loss
(as measured by
I've got no results on 11n. I've done most of my work on 11g. I will
see if i've got any results for 11g which might be appropriate.
Maybe
Upps. Got side tracked, disrupted, and hit send
Maybe you could perform some more tests in this direction at the next
WBM in Athens?
Andrew
19 matches
Mail list logo
