In my post I stated what the ethernet speed was, using speedtest.net, these speeds are consistent with what I would expect from my line as I do regular speed tests. I know from possibly 300 speed tests in the past week alone what my averages are on both ethernet off the router I built with OpenBSD, the router I have with pfSesne and the router I have from my ISP. Iam extremely familiar with the speed I get. And not just from the ethernet, but from all the wireless devices on pfSense, OpenBSD and ISP router firewalls. So, please.. don't insult my intelligence by telling me I can't be sure of anything - that's why I do multiple testing from everything. But thanks for your input.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Speed tests on 11n / 11g and on different channels with the latest 6.1 snapshot from yesterday. Patterns can be observed. Local Time: 6 March 2017 3:49 AM UTC Time: 6 March 2017 02:49 From: zel...@zeloff.org To: tec...@protonmail.com misc@openbsd.org On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 04:04:00PM -0500, tec...@protonmail.com wrote: > Why does it make no sense? It's a real world test on actual > performance noticed by a client. It absolutely makes sense. Yes there > are other tests which could be performed on top of that testing, > obviously. Because if you are comparing the results of different test runs you are assuming that the bandwidth from your gateway to the speedtest.net server is constant. And it might not be for a lot of reasons. Maybe it is constant, and in that case all's good, but you can't be sure, can you? So no, it doesn't make sense. If you want to test bandwidth from machine A to machine B, you measure it from A to B not from A to Z and assume B to Z is constant. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Speed tests on 11n / 11g and on different channels with the > latest 6.1 snapshot from yesterday. Patterns can be observed. > Local Time: 5 March 2017 9:29 PM > UTC Time: 5 March 2017 20:29 > From: paol...@gmail.com > To: misc@openbsd.org > > In order to measure the performance of a wireless 802.11 connection, > speedtest.net makes no sense. > > U'd better use iperf on your lan. > > Il 05/mar/2017 07:45 PM, <tec...@protonmail.com> ha scritto: > > > Forgot to mention that the speed tests were performed using > > https://speedtest.net from a mobile client connected to the AP. > > > > But yeah, the uploads can be pretty damn good on channels with less > > interference. > > > > Thanks for letting me know about the key issue in my logs. Luckily, it was > > just a temporary password/key for testing purposes. > > > > I will try the patch later and do a quick test and provide just the best > > result! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 11:16:28PM -0500, tec...@protonmail.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have performed some speed tests with my AP (AR9287) using both 11g and > > 11n. > > > I am on the latest 6.1 snapshot from yestrerday. > > > > Thanks for taking the time to test! > > > > > For comparison sake, I have included tests on different channels. > > > > Reporting just the best results is good enough for me. > > > > Channels are occupied differently everywhere and occupation patterns change > > constantly. So this comparison is mostly useful for yourself, since it > > tells > > you which channel is working best at your location (until some AP in your > > area decides that this channel is so good that it is going to use it, too). > > > > > I have approx 70mbps download speed on my ethernet connection, and an > > upload of under 20mbps. > > > > > > A pattern can be observed in these results. > > > > > > Upload speed is way above the download speed, infact in many of the > > > results the upload speed is hitting the same speeds as my ethernet > > > connection. > > > > What is down, and what is up? > > Is traffic going from the client to the AP what you call "upstream"? > > > > There is a known issue where an A won't transmit reliably at higher data > > rates with our athn(4) driver. I have no idea yet what is causing this > > problem. > > > > > Generally 11n upload speed is better, but on one of the channels - 5 - > > > both down and upload were pretty dire. Not sure if it is interference, > > > or wether the card is handling that particulary well. > > > > Most likely there is another busy network on channel 5. > > > > > Upper channels seem to provide the best performance. > > > > > > Hope these tests help in some way. > > > > Your numbers are in the ranges as the ones I get. This patch (not > > committed yet, and not in snaps) might make things a bit faster: > > https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=148866151017854&q=raw > --
