Bit Rate=54 Mb/s
RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Link Quality=100/100 Signal level:-58 dBm Noise level:-71
dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
I'm running this three antenna Draft N adapter in 'G' mode to a
80211.G router, through at one wall, of which is clad in stucco.
(Depending on hollow core doors that may or not be open/closed it can
amount to two walls worth of obstacle.)
Line of sight Distance would be 40/50 feet appox.
I hardly ever see anything on the 'retry' end of things but I wonder
how to gauge the Signal level vs Noise in the real world.
I'm getting an old laptop together to do a site survey, (is it still a
portable if you need a really long extension cord?...), but I was
curious if the room for improvement would be worth any effort.
Any particular reason you didn't bother supplying the hardware vendors
and model numbers? Just curious why it should be a secret.
>Line of sight Distance would be 40/50 feet appox.
If you can get a 54Mbit/sec association at that range, though one
wall, I'm impressed, especially if you happen to be using the stock
antennas. Perhaps your unspecified hardware shows 54Mbits/sec when no
data is moving, and much less when they're moving data.
>I hardly ever see anything on the 'retry' end of things but I wonder
>how to gauge the Signal level vs Noise in the real world.
You won't see anything. You're looking at IP layer 3 statistics. The
retries are all on the MAC layer 2 statistics, which are not easy to
extract from a Windoze machine. However, you get a clue as to the
number of retries by simply using ping. Assuming your unspecified
operating system is Windoze XP, try:
ping -t 192.168.1.1
You should see *CONSISTENT* 1 to 2 msec latency returns, with no
dramatic changes in latency, and no lost packets. If you do see these
changes and losses, your system is experiencing come packet loss.
Argh. Windoze ping doth suck. Try fping instead:
<http://www.kwakkelflap.com/fping.html>
which will show more accurate latency delays.
Also, after running ping for a while, and possibly seeing some losses,
check your layer 3 stats with:
netstat -e
netstat -e -s
My guess(tm) is despite the layer 2 packet losses and retransmissions,
you won't see any errors on layer 3 (which is the way it should be).
>I'm getting an old laptop together to do a site survey, (is it still a
>portable if you need a really long extension cord?...), but I was
>curious if the room for improvement would be worth any effort.
If you're going to do some useful testing, you MUST move some data. No
points for just providing the connection speed with no traffic.
Download and use iPerf or preferably JPerf:
Tutorial:
<http://openmaniak.com/iperf.php>
Downloads:
<http://iperf.sourceforge.net>
If you want to see what information is useful, read some of the
wireless tests and reviews on:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/component/option,com_wireless/Itemid,200/>
They use IXI Chariot (vedddy expensive), but in the past have done the
same tests using iPerf.
> Bit Rate=54 Mb/s
> RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
> Link Quality=100/100 Signal level:-58 dBm Noise level:-71
> dBm
> Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
> Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:0 Missed beacon:0
>
>
Have a look at Wavemon [eden-feed.erg.abdn.ac.uk/wavemon/]. It builds a nice
little histogram of wireless interface stats [as reported by the wireless
driver], which I find useful when trying to site APs/clients.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
16:45:10 up 85 days, 6:21, 2 users, load average: 0.44, 0.29, 0.17
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
I am actually going to follow up with some better detail; thx to your
links as well. (The OS is sometimes Windoze but often not), here is
another copy/paste with some tran/rec info in it...
The fact that I don't seem to see any collisions, errors, etc, etc
creates that warm fuzzy feeling, _but_ I'm going to do some metric
capturing during a big download (like the Win7 RC; 2Gig).
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:56:18 -0700 (PDT), berk <bayareaberk@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>The fact that I don't seem to see any collisions, errors, etc, etc
>creates that warm fuzzy feeling, _but_ I'm going to do some metric
>capturing during a big download (like the Win7 RC; 2Gig).
It's not a fact without data. Try the simple ping the router test I
mentioned and see what happens. If the numbers are a consistent 1-2
msec, there's no packet loss. If the numbers are all over the place,
you have packet loss. To get real numbers, you can either interrogate
your unspecified model wireless router (some have MAC layer stats), or
find a utility that shows the MAC errors on the client.
You've posted the layer two stats from the interface, not the layer one
stats. Try 'iwconfig ...' instead.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:42:58 up 86 days, 11:31, 2 users, load average: 0.68, 0.47, 0.32
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
On Jul 31, 1:49*pm, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> berk wrote:
> > * * * * * RX bytes:651177416 (651.1 MB) *TX bytes:176059236(176.0 MB)
>
> You've posted the layer two stats from the interface, not the layer one
> stats. Try 'iwconfig ...' instead.
>
> --
> *<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpE...@ale.cx)
> *21:42:58 up 86 days, 11:31, *2 users, *load average: 0.68, 0.47, 0..32
> *A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
Look fellas, despite the fact hat I'm an idiot, I was posting before
scrambling out the door. (It seems to be a reoccurring symptom of this
particular NG. Hmmmm.)
Lets see if third time can be the charm..... gathering data.
> Lets see if third time can be the charm..... gathering data.
Don't bust a gut doing it, I was just saying that looking at ifconfig for
wireless data won't tell you anything, but iwconfig will.
As Jeff mentioned upthread, wireless stats are all well and good, but the
proof of the pudding is in the pinging [or something else that tries to send
data across the link, like iperf]. When doing a walk test, I reduce the ping
interval [ -i whatever, or just -A if you're feeling clever] to get more
instantaneous feedback on what's changing. Larger packet sizes [ -s 250, for
example] are more likely to highlight loss on the link.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
10:09:27 up 87 days, 3 min, 3 users, load average: 0.37, 0.37, 0.20
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
How are these numbers? 
Linear Mode
