El lun, 25-05-2009 a las 13:23 +0200, Ivo van Doorn escribió: > On Monday 25 May 2009, Alejandro Riveira Fernández wrote: > > I reported it previously but i'm resending it as a regresion > > > > More info on the bugzilla > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13362 > > > > I bisected it in the estable tree (it regresses too) and the revert > > helps there but reverting the upstream commit in mainline does not help > > to fix it completely... > > Bug 9273 - rt2500pci: low TCP throughput > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9273 > > Bug 443203 - Fedora rawhide + ralink = slow bit rate > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443203 > > [Hardy][Intrepid] Low bandwidth with rt2400 / rt2500 drivers > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/190515 > > I can't call this a regression, dozens people have reported the problems > ranging from kernels 2.6.25 to 2.6.29. Perhaps in your case it worked slightly > better once, but that was not the case for all other users. > > Have you tried the "iwconfig wlan0 rate54M" workaround? Yep during various releases I used that workaround but once I switched to minstrel rate choosing alg (that's the neme isn't it) the problem gone away and i got allways a good connection for several releases and many kernels tried; till this patch. If I revert this patch the problem goes away completly and reliably (i'm using 2.6.29.4 with the patch reveted) so something has clearly regressed for me. You can see my coments ( ariveira ) on rt2x00 forums regarding the issues you mention (low speed that gets fixed forcing the rate) in the long thread about rt2500pci low rate[1]. Checking the message i see that it was 2.6.27 when i began using minstrel and got a rock solid connection in 2.6.27.x, 2.6.28.x and 2.6.29 minus 64e1b00c974ddeae6a60ebb02e1c487371905cea The problem is not that I get a low rate on connect (1Mbit) that i can easily fix with iwconfig the problem is that with 54M (and 48M and the like) connections I get a bumpy and low speed connection. So I honesty think it is not the same issue and I hope you read this as an interesting data point and not just as a duplicate. Would the output of this script[2] for 2.6.29.4 with and without the revert help you ? > > Ivo Thanks for the response [1] http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4579&start=45 [2] http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4660
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esto es una parte de mensaje firmado digitalmente
