On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 12:54 +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:03:00 +0100 > Mattias Nissler <mattias.nissler@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Wait a sec. Rate control is per station, so each AP will have it's own > > rate control state. > > Ah, right. So fixing the related TODO may make sense. What TODO excactly are you talking about? > > > Have you tried shorter sample intervals? Currently, it's once per > > second. I plan to shorten it, maybe to 2Hz or even 4Hz and see whether > > we can get better responsiveness and still stay stable. Also, the > > integration time needs to be fine-tuned then. > > Well, the integration and control times are just fine. I mean, you can tune > them, but I wouldn't expect the result to be very different. I just think we > need some intervention when exceptional events occur. But if you decide to > fix that TODO, considering association an exceptional event wouldn't make > sense any longer. I've seen improvements after interpolation cycles too, > though. > > > I also thought about your rate <-> failed frames table. I'm not > > convinced this works, because I cannot see a way to obtain consistent > > values for the table. Clearly, measuring table entries should be done > > with equal interference conditions for all entries, and they must also > > be adjusted over time. However, if we only collect data during normal > > operation, we'll likely have good data only for the few recent rates we > > were operating at. > > Yes, that's exactly what I meant. So? How to do it right? Mattias - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
