|
2012-12-28
, 08:32
|
Posts: 19 |
Thanked: 6 times |
Joined on Dec 2012
|
#32
|
|
2012-12-28
, 12:21
|
Posts: 230 |
Thanked: 302 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Helsinki, Suomi (Finland)
|
#33
|
But I know that some other N9 users said they had no problems with their 802.11n routers.. maybe in neighbour topics on this forum. Can somebody evaluate actual Wi-Fi N speed in a similar way and post the results here so that we can compare different users' experience?
P.S. "M/s" means "Megabytes per a second" - it's not a bitrate, it's a real file transfer speed.
~ $ ping openwrt PING openwrt (192.168.0.254): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=0 ttl=64 time=2.350 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.174 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=2 ttl=64 time=10.223 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=3 ttl=64 time=8.728 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=4 ttl=64 time=9.796 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=5 ttl=64 time=10.315 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=6 ttl=64 time=10.345 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=7 ttl=64 time=10.406 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=8 ttl=64 time=10.407 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=9 ttl=64 time=10.224 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=10 ttl=64 time=10.315 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=11 ttl=64 time=10.284 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=12 ttl=64 time=10.253 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=13 ttl=64 time=9.003 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=14 ttl=64 time=10.376 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=15 ttl=64 time=10.254 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=16 ttl=64 time=10.254 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=17 ttl=64 time=10.437 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=18 ttl=64 time=10.529 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=19 ttl=64 time=8.819 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=20 ttl=64 time=10.223 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=21 ttl=64 time=8.759 ms ^C --- openwrt ping statistics --- 22 packets transmitted, 22 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 2.350/9.339/10.529 ms
~ $ ping openwrt PING openwrt (192.168.0.254): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=0 ttl=64 time=183.289 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=1 ttl=64 time=185.638 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=2 ttl=64 time=201.447 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=3 ttl=64 time=209.808 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=4 ttl=64 time=220.704 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=5 ttl=64 time=11.292 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=6 ttl=64 time=19.958 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=7 ttl=64 time=43.305 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=8 ttl=64 time=52.582 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=9 ttl=64 time=62.317 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=10 ttl=64 time=72.266 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=11 ttl=64 time=80.841 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=12 ttl=64 time=91.584 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=13 ttl=64 time=101.318 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=14 ttl=64 time=111.236 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=15 ttl=64 time=120.880 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=16 ttl=64 time=130.829 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.254: seq=17 ttl=64 time=140.533 ms ^C --- openwrt ping statistics --- 18 packets transmitted, 18 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max = 11.292/113.323/220.704 ms
The Following User Says Thank You to ladoga For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-02-16
, 23:26
|
Posts: 47 |
Thanked: 16 times |
Joined on Jul 2012
|
#34
|
Some good news.
Before trying to recompile wireless driver or going to NITdroid forum I decided to reflash my Nokia N9. You see, many errors and misconfiguration problems are possible due to updating the phone over the air several times, so it's certainly better to make a "clean install" of phone firmware. So I followed these instructions to zeroize and reflash my N9: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...16&postcount=1 .
Then I turned on my phone, installed developer-mode, networking utilities (including wget), and redone all my measurments.
First I set up AP configuration with QoS disabled; here is a part of my hostapd config:
I tried to download a large file and the average speed was ~ 2.6 M/s (according to wget output). It seemed to be usual 802.11g speed.Code:hw_mode=g ieee80211n=1 ht_capab=[HT20+][SHORT-GI-20] channel=6
Then I edited hostapd config and enabled QoS:
The result was exciting. Enabling QoS improved the speed, not reduced it. The average speed was ~ 2.9 M/s. Sometimes it jumped up to 3.1 M/s (!). Such a result is unreachable with 802.11g-only mode.Code:ieee80211n=1 wmm_enabled=1 ht_capab=[HT20+][SHORT-GI-20] channel=6
Okay, then I made hostapd use [HT40+] instead of [HT20+]. The speed reduced. It was ~ 1 M/s again. With QoS disabled it raised up to stable 2.6 M/s . And such a result isn't surprising, because according to iw output, N9's wireless module supports only HT20 and SHORT-GI-20 capabilities, so using QoS with HT40 results in reducing speed. I think it's quite normal.
But at least I've managed to get my 802.11n work properly with HT20 and QoS enabled. The speed is 2.9 - 3.1 M/s now (it's definetely higher than usual 802.11g speed), the connection is stable, so I'm able to use Internet, ssh and http file transfer without any problems. I'm very glad.
But I know that some other N9 users said they had no problems with their 802.11n routers.. maybe in neighbour topics on this forum. Can somebody evaluate actual Wi-Fi N speed in a similar way and post the results here so that we can compare different users' experience?
P.S. "M/s" means "Megabytes per a second" - it's not a bitrate, it's a real file transfer speed.
|
2013-04-11
, 00:17
|
Posts: 198 |
Thanked: 130 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ Pakistan
|
#35
|
|
2013-04-11
, 07:02
|
Moderator |
Posts: 5,320 |
Thanked: 4,464 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#36
|
|
2013-04-11
, 08:44
|
Posts: 230 |
Thanked: 302 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Helsinki, Suomi (Finland)
|
#37
|
The Following User Says Thank You to ladoga For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-04-11
, 14:59
|
Moderator |
Posts: 5,320 |
Thanked: 4,464 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#38
|
|
2013-04-11
, 15:22
|
Posts: 592 |
Thanked: 1,167 times |
Joined on Jul 2012
|
#39
|
|
2013-04-13
, 02:14
|
Posts: 152 |
Thanked: 70 times |
Joined on Aug 2012
@ India
|
#40
|
Smells like screen taking up too much CPU and network dropping in lower CPU usage priortiy...
As if it would be hardware, locking the screen would not necessarily fix the issue...
But interesting topic!! I have had problems with Wifi too (apart of the usual bugs). It would be *great* to improve this!
Please don't give up!
BWizz - best N9 bookmark editing tool! Check it out ->BWizz for Harmattan
LINKer - transform your N9's home view in a Desktop, give it the freedom it deserves! -> LINKer for Harmattan
QuickBar - Can't find the app you used yesterday in your overcrowded Home Screen? Want access to the QuickLaunch bar even in the home screen? QuickBar for Harmattan
If you like our work, and would like to support via PayPal : users.giulietta@gmail.com