On 07/23/2011 02:18 PM, Harshal Chhaya wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Christian Lamparter
<chunkeey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Saturday 23 July 2011 21:22:35 Harshal Chhaya wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Christian Lamparter
<chunkeey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday 14 July 2011 21:37:29 Harshal Chhaya wrote:
I am working on an AP design that uses a TI-OMAP3 host processor with
an Atheros AR9170 + AR9101 WLAN chipset. We are currently using
carl9170 version 1.9.2 and carl9170 firmware version 1.9.4.
One question: have you considered ath9k_htc? I would certainly recommend
it over any ar9170 device.
I was under the impression that AP mode support is better in carl9170
than in ath9k_htc. I had considered using AR9271 (which is a more
recent chipset than the AR9170) but decided against it based on my
understanding (which is based on the info on the wiki pages).
Interesting... Sujith, can you please take a look at the wiki if ath9k_htc's AP/P2P
infos are still up to date?
Thanks for following up on this. I am really interested to know if I
should switch to using the AR9271 (or some other similar chipset).
If AR9271 (and ath9k_htc) are more stable and preferable to the AR9170
w/ carl9170, please let me know.
AR9271 recevied a lot more testing, so it's ought to perform better.
Also, to clarify: my application is a wireless network that needs to
support 60-70 802.11g clients connecting to the AP using WPA2-PEAP.
All of the clients are battery powered and use the power save
mechanisms of 802.11.
60-70 clients is a lot. This would rule out ath9k_htc since the firmwares
only supports 7/8 stations at a time and I think that's a reasonable limit
for any wireless network. Also, with so many stations the hardware crypto
will not have enough space to store all station keys and has to switch to
software de- and encryption.
Do you see any issues using AR9170 and carl9170 in this scenario?
Sorry, but I've no data about this scenario. However some time ago
Ben<greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> played around 128 stations on a ath9k
network. But I don't know if he tested any USB solutions at that time.
I agree - ~8 clients is a reasonable number for most wireless
networks. However, I have a specific application where I need to
support 60-70 clients on a single AP. I will check with Ben on his
experience. Thanks for his contact info.
We haven't used USB, but we can reliably support 128 stations,
using WPA on AR9380 and the older mini-pci chipsets. We have hacks
to make wpa_supplicant be much more efficient when using lots
of virtual stations on one machine, but no significant changes
to AP mode.
Also, we are associating 128 virtual stations from a single or
small number of radios. You may get different behaviour if you
are using 128 real radios.
You can find our hostap repository here:
https://github.com/greearb/hostap-ct
We are trying to get our changes pushed upstream, but it's a slow
process...
The 'can-scan-one' logic requires hacks to the kernel as well, in case
you want to use it. Our kernel patches are here:
http://dmz2.candelatech.com/git/?p=linux-3.0.dev.y/.git;a=summary
I don't think any of our current kernel wireless patches have a chance at upstream
acceptance, but they are fairly minimal, so the stock 3.0 kernel might
be fine for you.
Our hardware is dual-core Atom systems or better, 1GB+ RAM, etc. These are fairly powerful,
and we disable power saving by default. We use software encryption to allow
virtualization.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
