On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 05:54:21PM +0200, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> On 07/24/16 15:28, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 01:09:26PM +0200, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> >>However, the wireless link via iwm(4) is currently almost unusable.
> >>Overall throughput for multiple tcp
On 07/24/16 15:28, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 01:09:26PM +0200, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
>> However, the wireless link via iwm(4) is currently almost unusable.
>> Overall throughput for multiple tcp connections typically between 0 and
>> 1 Mbit/s but mostly on the lower end,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 01:09:26PM +0200, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> However, the wireless link via iwm(4) is currently almost unusable.
> Overall throughput for multiple tcp connections typically between 0 and
> 1 Mbit/s but mostly on the lower end, i.e., 0.
Looking at the wifi environment
On 07/22/16 11:36, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:25:11PM +0200, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
>> sorry, my response was not precise - the "fatal" error is gone now but the
>> observed performance problems are still there.
>
...
> In the best iwm per
Am Freitag, den 22.07.2016, 11:36 +0200 schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> I've already been told about iwm performance regressions compared to
> 5.9,
> so I'd like to make a statement (not just directed at you, Andreas,
> but
> at everyone).
JFYI: A temporary workaround which works fo
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:25:11PM +0200, Andreas Bartelt wrote:
> sorry, my response was not precise - the "fatal" error is gone now but the
> observed performance problems are still there.
I've already been told about iwm performance regressions compared to 5.9,
so I'd like to
6 matches
Mail list logo
