On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 09:26:44AM +0800, Huang wen hui wrote: > hi, > I have R40 and try to get Intel 2100 wlan work. > I download new driver from > http://www-306.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=TPAD-MATRIX > basicly,wlan works, but performance is bad: > > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=92 ttl=64 time=6.718 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=88 ttl=64 time=4267.039 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=91 ttl=64 time=1544.590 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=89 ttl=64 time=3765.145 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=87 ttl=64 time=5986.673 ms (DUP!) > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=93 ttl=64 time=1.980 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=94 ttl=64 time=6.855 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=95 ttl=64 time=6.870 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=7.209 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=97 ttl=64 time=2.118 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=98 ttl=64 time=2.929 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=2223.507 ms (DUP!) > ^C > --- 192.168.1.6 ping statistics --- > 99 packets transmitted, 99 packets received, +104 duplicates, 0% packet loss > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.896/1928.298/10524.836/2269.834 ms That isn't bad performance (unless you consider <= 7ms bad), that is duplicate packets that are taking a long time to make it back to you. Everything that is over 1000 ms is a duplicate. #96, for example: 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=7.209 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.6: icmp_seq=96 ttl=64 time=2223.507 ms (DUP!) Whatever is causing the duplicates may be causing your performance to tank as a side-effect, of course.Received on Tue Jan 13 2004 - 16:49:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:38 UTC