Michel Lanners wrote:
>
> On 17 Apr, this message from Nicholas Ingolia echoed through cyberspace:
> > I and others I know get similar numbers and have perfect wireless
> > performance.
>
> OK, thanks. Are your Link Quality readings comparable as well?
>
> > Are you aware that the signal and noise numbers are in logarithmic units,
> > meaning that the signal is more than 1000-fold stronger than the
> > noise?
>
> Oh yes, I know db calculations quite well. What struck me is that the
> Link Quality reading is consistently at something like 30% (i.e. 30/92),
> which does seem rather poor. If the -60dbm receive level is normal, then
> why leave so much room in the quality scale?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> iwconfig
~
lo no wireless extensions.
eth0 no wireless extensions.
eth1 IEEE 802.11-DS ESSID:"public" Nickname:"HERMES I"
Frequency:2.442GHz Sensitivity:1/3 Mode:Managed
Access Point: 00:40:96:38:53:3C
Bit Rate:11Mb/s RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Power Management:off
Link quality:38/92 Signal level:-54 dBm Noise level:-92 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 invalid crypt:0 invalid misc:0
Notice that -54 - -92 = 38 . Get the idea? :)
OTOH the wireless plugin for gkrellm is showing quality around 200, dunno what
that number means...
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper) \ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
CS student, Free Software enthusiast \ XFree86 and DRI project member
