Hi > > +------+ +------+ > > | A |--[bridge] / \ / \ / \ / [bridge]--------| B | > > +------+ +------+ > > (5 meters) > > Just a warning, this configuration was working fine last last night abeit a > bit slow, but this morning I had > no connectivity and it took quite a few pings to get the network back up > again (the wireless equivelent of an > arp I guess, with no traffic the connections lost each other somehow). So my > conclusion is that if you want > poor performance, lots of grief and hassle then go wireless, Me I'm gonna > steer well clear of it, it's crap.
and > > So my conclusion is that if you want poor performance, lots of grief and > > hassle then go wireless, Me I'm gonna steer well clear of it, it's crap. > > Get an access point, so you'll have a managed network, instead of an ad-hoc > network. Much more satisfying. :-) my setup is an olive-picking machine, with gates joining each half. (some sort of) wireless is the only option. I need reliable A-side B-side comms, huge machine-out-of-control is scarey, even with comms watchdogs. So A-B adhoc seemed good, are you suggesting an access point on one side ? James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
