[Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

FathisAeril · 2013-05-16 19:23:31

Hey guys, having a bit of a weird problem with NetworkManager and my wireless card. My card supports Wireless-N, but NetworkManager doesn't seem to be using it. Using the kde network applet if I click it so it lists all the info and all available networks. At the bottom it says:

"Band:" Under the 2.4ghz network it lists "b/g." Under the 5ghz network it lists "a" for band. The router is set to be broadcasting ONLY Wireless-N networks on either so it shouldn't even be GIVING out b/g or a networks but it is.

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family DRAM Controller (rev 09)
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 2nd Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 09)
00:16.0 Communication controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family MEI Controller #1 (rev 04)
00:1a.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #2 (rev 05)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family High Definition Audio Controller (rev 05)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 1 (rev b5)
00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 2 (rev b5)
00:1c.3 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family PCI Express Root Port 4 (rev b5)
00:1d.0 USB controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller #1 (rev 05)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation QS67 Express Chipset Family LPC Controller (rev 05)
00:1f.2 SATA controller: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family 6 port SATA AHCI Controller (rev 05)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family SMBus Controller (rev 05)
02:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Centrino Advanced-N 6230 [Rainbow Peak] (rev 34)
03:00.0 USB controller: Fresco Logic FL1009 USB 3.0 Host Controller (rev 02)

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ modinfo iwlwifi | grep parm
parm:           swcrypto:using crypto in software (default 0 [hardware]) (int)
parm:           11n_disable:disable 11n functionality, bitmap: 1: full, 2: agg TX, 4: agg RX (uint)
parm:           amsdu_size_8K:enable 8K amsdu size (int)
parm:           fw_restart:restart firmware in case of error (int)
parm:           antenna_coupling:specify antenna coupling in dB (defualt: 0 dB) (int)
parm:           bt_ch_inhibition:Enable BT channel inhibition (default: enable) (bool)
parm:           plcp_check:Check plcp health (default: 1 [enabled]) (bool)
parm:           wd_disable:Disable stuck queue watchdog timer 0=system default, 1=disable, 2=enable (default: 0) (int)
parm:           bt_coex_active:enable wifi/bt co-exist (default: enable) (bool)
parm:           led_mode:0=system default, 1=On(RF On)/Off(RF Off), 2=blinking, 3=Off (default: 0) (int)
parm:           power_save:enable WiFi power management (default: disable) (bool)
parm:           power_level:default power save level (range from 1 - 5, default: 1) (int)
parm:           auto_agg:enable agg w/o check traffic load (default: enable) (bool)
parm:           5ghz_disable:disable 5GHz band (default: 0 [enabled]) (bool)

[eric@eric-laptop parameters]$ pwd
/sys/module/iwlwifi/parameters
[eric@eric-laptop parameters]$ cat 11n_disable
0
[eric@eric-laptop parameters]$ cat 5ghz_disable
N
[eric@eric-laptop parameters]$ cat wd_disable
1

[eric@eric-laptop iwldvm]$ iwconfig
wlp2s0    IEEE 802.11abgn  ESSID:"(Removed)"  
          Mode:Managed  Frequency:2.422 GHz  Access Point: (Removed)   
          Bit Rate=130 Mb/s   Tx-Power=15 dBm   
          Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
          Power Management:off
          Link Quality=55/70  Signal level=-55 dBm  
          Rx invalid nwid:0  Rx invalid crypt:0  Rx invalid frag:0
          Tx excessive retries:1529  Invalid misc:77   Missed beacon:0

So its router is broadcasting Wireless-N, it has a driver that supports Wireless-N, the driver is enabled to ALLOW Wireless-N....so why isn't it using wireless-N? Anyone have any ideas? It would be very appreciated

Last edited by FathisAeril (2013-05-21 16:22:12)

Raynman · 2013-05-16 19:35:16

The

Bit Rate=130 Mb/s

looks like wireless-N speed to me?

Regarding the applet: you say it indicates "b/g" under "band" (not "speed"). Couldn't that be some way of presenting information in a "more accessible" way for non-technical users (i.e., "b/g" really means 2.4GHz, which is actually also used for "n").

Last edited by Raynman (2013-05-16 19:35:34)

FathisAeril · 2013-05-16 19:44:47

The applet's speed is listed as between 50 and 150MBit/s, it varies heavily second by second. Weirdly, if I go to the applet's settings and tell it to display either MB/s or MBit/s ...it doesnt change, it only lists MBit/s

According to: http://www.unitconversion.org/data-stor … rsion.html

Speed: 144Mbit/s is equal to 18MB/s, so I'm definitely not getting the 150MB/s that iwconfig is reporting.

Just hit 300Mbit/s according to the applet, converted... 37.5MB/s. Still not anywhere near the 150MB's a second that. Iwconfig is showinng speeds in MB's all over the place from 100MB's to 300MB's which is great except that sometimes even pacman error's out stating that it got less than 1KB a second in transfer speed...so im really not sure what to believe

Last edited by FathisAeril (2013-05-16 20:10:18)

manuelschneid3r · 2013-05-17 15:45:59

iwconfig reports 150 Mb/s. Megabit per second. Megabytes per second would be MB/s.

IEEE 802.11n uses MIMO technolgy. If you dont know that acronym, google first. One antenna makes max 150mb/s. Well with max 4 antennas you'ld come up to 600Mb/s !!gross!! rate. Hence an important info is the amount of antennas of your access point.

I have that problem, too. My outputs are all pretty the same but when it comes to iwconfig, I get:

wlp2s0    IEEE 802.11bgn  ESSID:"Home2"  
          Mode:Managed  Frequency:2.462 GHz  Access Point: C8:3A:35:F0:A1:28   
          Bit Rate=27 Mb/s   Tx-Power=14 dBm   
          Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
          Power Management:off
          Link Quality=54/70  Signal level=-56 dBm  
          Rx invalid nwid:0  Rx invalid crypt:0  Rx invalid frag:0
          Tx excessive retries:254750  Invalid misc:78   Missed beacon:0

My Draft-n Access Point (LogiLinkWL0110) has just one antenna. But 27Mb/s is still bad.
Is there any idea what can cause the problem?

Info:
Network controller: Intel Corporation Centrino Wireless-N 1000 [Condor Peak]
Subsystem: Intel Corporation Centrino Wireless-N 1000 BGN
Kernel driver in use: iwlwifi
Kernel modules: iwlwifi
Using NetworkManager

/sys/module/iwlwifi/parameters$ modinfo iwlwifi | grep parm | while read X;do echo $X; Y=${X#*: }; Z=${Y%%:*}; cat $Z  ;done
parm: swcrypto:using crypto in software (default 0 [hardware]) (int)
0
parm: 11n_disable:disable 11n functionality, bitmap: 1: full, 2: agg TX, 4: agg RX (uint)
0
parm: amsdu_size_8K:enable 8K amsdu size (default 0) (int)
0
parm: fw_restart:restart firmware in case of error (int)
1
parm: antenna_coupling:specify antenna coupling in dB (defualt: 0 dB) (int)
0
parm: bt_ch_inhibition:Enable BT channel inhibition (default: enable) (bool)
Y
parm: plcp_check:Check plcp health (default: 1 [enabled]) (bool)
Y
parm: wd_disable:Disable stuck queue watchdog timer 0=system default, 1=disable, 2=enable (default: 0) (int)
1
parm: bt_coex_active:enable wifi/bt co-exist (default: enable) (bool)
Y
parm: led_mode:0=system default, 1=On(RF On)/Off(RF Off), 2=blinking, 3=Off (default: 0) (int)
0
parm: power_save:enable WiFi power management (default: disable) (bool)
N
parm: power_level:default power save level (range from 1 - 5, default: 1) (int)
0
parm: auto_agg:enable agg w/o check traffic load (default: enable) (bool)
Y
parm: 5ghz_disable:disable 5GHz band (default: 0 [enabled]) (bool)
N

Last edited by manuelschneid3r (2013-05-17 16:04:59)

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-17 15:59:38

The Intel cards adjust their througput to whatever level is needed for the given moment. So try transferring a large file between systems and see if the Bit Rate goes up. When I was using my Intel card, it would fluctuate wildly depending on the load. The first Intel card I had was a 6235 (which was f*cking amazing) and the second was a 2230 (which was pretty good), both ran off the iwlwifi module and both did this fluctuating reporting of Bit Rate.

@OP, for someone who understands the difference between bits and bytes, I am really surprised that you don't know that network bandwidth is nearly always reported in megabits. Your expectations of 300 Megabytes of throughput are wildly off. You are getting exactly as you should expect. Enjoy it!

manuelschneid3r · 2013-05-17 16:11:28

I can't test I really, because I have no Gigabit LAN. All I can say is, that, althought I have Draft-N, the transmission (2,5MB/s) is slower than with the cable (3,5MB) tested with arch.iso on a Samba share. I guess this is not normal. I will come back when I switched to Gigabit in two or three months. Thanks for the hint on intel modules.

Last edited by manuelschneid3r (2013-05-17 16:13:19)

FathisAeril · 2013-05-17 17:19:47

After spending all of yesterday googling around, following bug reports and delving through source code... it turns out that all of this, and my slowdowns, may be a cause by buggy implementation of Wireless-N on basically all Intel wireless cards. Notice the excessively high "Excessive Tx Retries." Solution is to play around with the parameters for iwlwifi (or iwlagn depending on your driver). For anyone who happens to find this thread in the future...

A few things you can try: An automatic fix for this, but at the slowest speeds (about 6mb/s) is to just set

options iwlwifi 11n_disable=1

in /etc/modprobe.d/iwlwifi.conf

If you want to try to get some faster speeds, but maybe not completly fixing the issue / creating a little instability at times.... you can set:

options iwlwifi 11n_disable=2 bt_coex_active=N wd_disable=2

in /etc/modprobe.d/iwlwifi.conf

Last edited by FathisAeril (2013-05-17 17:20:26)

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-17 17:36:03

Just for clairty's sake, I just want to point out that there still appears to be some confusion about Mb vs MB. Disabling N (11n_disable=1) will result in wireless-G which is 54Mb/s. Seeing that a byte is made up of 8 bits, the "around 6mb/s" is correct if you assume that FathisAeril really meant "around 6MB/s" or six megabytes per second.

The lower case "b" means bits, while an upper-case "B" represents bytes. So if your HW advertises 150Mb/s the theoretical maximum is going to be just under 18MB/s.

The second modprobe.d example, I am really not sure what is hoped to be achieved by the second two parameters either. Since the bt_coex_active parameter is simply whether or not the bluetooth is enabled on a card that has both, and the wd_disable=2 simply forces on the watchdog, which should already be on per the system defaults. With wd_disable, 0 is the system default, 1 is off and 2 is on, while the default setting is 0.

In any case, I am glad you got your wifi a bit more stable FathisAeril. I am not sure if you want to mark this thread as [Solved] as your end result is certainly not solving the original problem of you thinking the card was not using wireless-N. I'd say its your call.

FathisAeril · 2013-05-18 03:58:19

Screw it... lets figure this out, because its starting to tick me off.

cat /etc/modprobe.d/iwlwifi.conf

options iwlwifi wd_disable=2 11n_disable=1

iwconfig

wlp2s0    IEEE 802.11abg  ESSID:"ONI"  
          Mode:Managed  Frequency:5.22 GHz  Access Point: 20:AA:4B:6F:C3:FF   
          Bit Rate=6 Mb/s   Tx-Power=15 dBm   
          Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
          Power Management:off
          Link Quality=37/70  Signal level=-73 dBm  
          Rx invalid nwid:0  Rx invalid crypt:0  Rx invalid frag:0
          Tx excessive retries:0  Invalid misc:117   Missed beacon:0

lo        no wireless extensions.

Wireless-N is disabled in that current config. My connection is slow, but stable. Iwconfig is showing 6megabits a second, which even for Wireless-G seems slow at under 1Megabyte...though considering my signal strength is at -73, i guess its not terribly surprising.

If I enable Wireless-N (turn disable to 0) I can connect, and I do get slightly faster speeds but then i start dropping packets like crazy. "Tx Excessive Retries" which according to man iwconfig is a report on the number of dropped packets, starts climbing up at a rate of about 5 a second. I've been connected on the wifi for about an hour now with wireless-N turned off...and so far, Tx Retries is still at 0.

For the record Woofy, your comment about intel cards bumping up transfer speeds when needed doesn't seem to hold true. I just started streaming 720p youtube video and it stayed at 6Mb/s, same as when it was loading simple news sites (linuxhomepage.com)

Also if I enable Wireless-N then NetworkManager starts reporting a lot of disassociations (reason=3)'s in the log files. Googling around told me that that often occurs due to high interference and that on intel cards disabling wireless-N can alleviate it. While I dont completly understand the reasoning.... so far its holding true. Not a single disconnect in the hour, meanwhile with N enabled it happened pretty frequently. Another suggestion for reason=3 was to change from NetworkManger to wicd... wicd wont even let me connect to either of my networks, says Bad Password for both which doesnt make any sense at all.

I want to figure out why Wireless-N is falling flat on its face, what I can do about it, and ideally fix it.

Also Woofy, while I do know the difference between bits and bytes, I've actually just grown used to seeing them in bytes so I didnt really take note of the lowercase B in both Networkmanager's output and iwconfig's. Thank you for pointing it out and if you are willing to help me figure this out, itd be greatly appreciated. This is basically my last single biggest complain with Linux on this laptop

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-18 04:50:35

Do you realize that the 5GHz band offers wireless 'a' and 'n'. So if you 11n_disable=1 and then connect to the 5GHz band, your combination of a degraded signal on an 'a' network is likely to make things slow down pretty quick. Can you try the 2.4 GHz band and see if things are better there? Also, is there any way you might be able to improve your signal strength? When my signal strength was that low, there was a definite noticeable difference with my old intel card.

I too got some Tx excessive retries when I was using my Intel card, but not in the order of 5/second. Now on my broadcom card, I have zero as well. I wonder if maybe you are on a particularly clogged network? Like maybe a university campus or something? Though if that were having an influence on your retries, it would also be happening under any circumstances.

Honestly, I have seen a number of people have this issue with Intel cards. Both my 6235 and my 2230 worked great. Though admittedly, my broadcom card works better. I never had to set anything fancy when loading my module though, and unfortunately I have never seen anyone come up with any real solution to this Intel WiFi problem, that onyl some seem to have.

FathisAeril · 2013-05-18 05:56:54

WonderWoofy wrote:

Do you realize that the 5GHz band offers wireless 'a' and 'n'. So if you 11n_disable=1 and then connect to the 5GHz band, your combination of a degraded signal on an 'a' network is likely to make things slow down pretty quick. Can you try the 2.4 GHz band and see if things are better there? Also, is there any way you might be able to improve your signal strength? When my signal strength was that low, there was a definite noticeable difference with my old intel card.
I too got some Tx excessive retries when I was using my Intel card, but not in the order of 5/second. Now on my broadcom card, I have zero as well. I wonder if maybe you are on a particularly clogged network? Like maybe a university campus or something? Though if that were having an influence on your retries, it would also be happening under any circumstances.
Honestly, I have seen a number of people have this issue with Intel cards. Both my 6235 and my 2230 worked great. Though admittedly, my broadcom card works better. I never had to set anything fancy when loading my module though, and unfortunately I have never seen anyone come up with any real solution to this Intel WiFi problem, that onyl some seem to have.

yes I do realize that the 5ghz band offers both A and N. This is a home network by the way, 1 network "WhoKnows" is 2.4ghz, the other "ONI" is on the 5ghz band. With N still disabled and going between the two... ONI gives me 6Mbit/s, WhoKnows gives me 1Mbit/s as reported by iwconfig.

As far as improving my signal strength...Not really. Like I could move physically closer to the router but thats not an actual fix longterm. Also i can't really test getting closer as I'm currently laid up in bed from surgery on my leg, so im not moving much haha.

Clogged network? Quite possibly.

1) My Xbox 360 --> ONI
2) My Phone --> ONI
3) Media Server --> WhoKnows
4) My laptop --> ONI or WhoKnows (this machine)
5) Mom's laptop --> WhoKnows
6) Dad's laptop --> WhoKnows
7) Blu-Ray Player --> WhoKnows
8) Mom's Phone --> WhoKnows
9) Dad's Phone --> WhoKnows
10) Dad's iPad --> WhoKnows
11) Mom's desktop --> Ethernet
12) Networked Printer --> Ethernet or WhoKnows, I forget at the moment.

And yes...I'm the one who gets to admin and maintain this bloated abomination of a network -.-

As you can see, most of its running on the 2.4Ghz band, which is why i try to keep my stuff on the ONI 5ghz network, all of this is running out of an EA3500 Linksys router.

FathisAeril · 2013-05-18 06:14:36

Re-enabled Wireless-N, rebooted, connected to ONI (5ghz) and after 13minutes this is what I've got (notice Tx retries)

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ uptime
 02:13:31 up 13 min,  4 users,  load average: 0.11, 0.17, 0.14
[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ iwconfig
wlp2s0    IEEE 802.11abgn  ESSID:"ONI"  
          Mode:Managed  Frequency:5.22 GHz  Access Point: 20:AA:4B:6F:C3:FF   
          Bit Rate=15 Mb/s   Tx-Power=15 dBm   
          Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
          Power Management:off
          Link Quality=37/70  Signal level=-73 dBm  
          Rx invalid nwid:0  Rx invalid crypt:0  Rx invalid frag:0
          Tx excessive retries:5701  Invalid misc:107   Missed beacon:0

lo        no wireless extensions.

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-18 17:47:12

I am going to put my Intel card back in my machine and see what kind of Tx excessive retries BS it gives me. I'll report back.

Update: Hmmmm... I never noticed just how many excessive reties were happening. Honestly in this case it does not have any effect on performance of the card whatsoever. This is after connecting to the network and then opening dwb about two seconds later. There were 10 tabs from last session that were opened with it, including this thread. So over a period of about ten seconds, this is what I got:

iwconfig output @ 10sec wrote:

wlp3s0 IEEE 802.11bgn ESSID:"MyHomeNetwork"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.457 GHz Access Point: 1A:2B:3C:4D:5E:6F
Bit Rate=135 Mb/s Tx-Power=16 dBm
Retry long limit:7 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality=66/70 Signal level=-44 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:1605 Invalid misc:31 Missed beacon:0

So maybe in trying to lower the "Tx excessive retries" you are not actually chasing the most significant defect. I'm not saying that it is not an issue, nor am I saying that it should not be addressed. But from what has been discussed so far in this thread, it would seem that there is the thought that the two go hand in hand.

BTW, if I do iwconfig over and over I got these results "Bit Rate=27Mb/s" --> "135Mb/s" --> "270Mb/s" --> "1Mb/s" --> "1Mb/s" --> "135Mb/s". So I find the consistency in your card's reported Bit Rate to be a bit strange. The other Intel card I had (the 6235) did the same thing.

Here is the output of "sudo lspci -vnn | grep -A 10 Network"

03:00.0 Network controller [0280]: Intel Corporation Centrino Wireless-N 2230 [8086:0888] (rev c4)
	Subsystem: Intel Corporation Centrino Wireless-N 2230 BGN [8086:4262]
	Flags: bus master, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 46
	Memory at f2d00000 (64-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=8K]
	Capabilities: [c8] Power Management version 3
	Capabilities: [d0] MSI: Enable+ Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit+
	Capabilities: [e0] Express Endpoint, MSI 00
	Capabilities: [100] Advanced Error Reporting
	Capabilities: [140] Device Serial Number 11-aa-22-bb-33-cc-44-dd
	Kernel driver in use: iwlwifi
	Kernel modules: iwlwifi

The model is different, but these same issues have been reported in regard to this card.

Sorry I can't offer a real solution to this problem. The only thing I can really think of is to either heal and get closer to that router, or start using the 2.4GHz band so that you have a better signal.

Last edited by WonderWoofy (2013-05-18 19:55:20)

FathisAeril · 2013-05-18 23:15:49

So I happen to have 2 kernels installed on this. One is mainline 3.9.2, the other is 3.10rc1 with some i915 patches applied because my laptop has some hardware quirks. On a hunch I booted into 3.9.2 and 3.10 back and forth testing things. Output below. I also adjusted a few things on the networks, such as moving the network channel to one less crowded, also restricted the 2.4ghz to 20mhz, the 5ghz network is restricted to 40mhz.

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ uname -a
Linux eric-laptop 3.9.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat May 11 20:31:08 CEST 2013 x86_64 GNU/Linux

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ cat /etc/modprobe.d/iwlwifi.conf
options iwlwifi 11n_disable=2

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ iwconfig
wlp2s0    IEEE 802.11abgn  ESSID:"WhoKnows"  
          Mode:Managed  Frequency:2.412 GHz  Access Point: 20:AA:4B:6F:C3:FD   
          Bit Rate=72.2 Mb/s   Tx-Power=15 dBm   
          Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
          Power Management:off
          Link Quality=46/70  Signal level=-64 dBm  
          Rx invalid nwid:0  Rx invalid crypt:0  Rx invalid frag:0
          Tx excessive retries:0  Invalid misc:133   Missed beacon:0

lo        no wireless extensions.

Excessive retries STAYED at zero, my Bit Rate however was all over the place. Capping at 130Mb/s on the 2.4 and 135Mb/s on the 5ghz, and going as well as 40Mb/s on the 2.4ghz, and about 80Mb/s on the 5ghz.

Going to reboot into 3.10 and then edit this post for those stats

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ uname -a
Linux eric-laptop 3.10.0-1-mainline-dellxps #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu May 16 19:19:53 EDT 2013 x86_64 GNU/Linux

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ cat /etc/modprobe.d/iwlwifi.conf
options iwlwifi 11n_disable=2

[eric@eric-laptop ~]$ iwconfig
wlp2s0    IEEE 802.11abgn  ESSID:"ONI"  
          Mode:Managed  Frequency:5.18 GHz  Access Point: 20:AA:4B:6F:C3:FF   
          Bit Rate=15 Mb/s   Tx-Power=15 dBm   
          Retry  long limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
          Power Management:off
          Link Quality=35/70  Signal level=-75 dBm  
          Rx invalid nwid:0  Rx invalid crypt:0  Rx invalid frag:0
          Tx excessive retries:0  Invalid misc:45   Missed beacon:0

lo        no wireless extensions.

There is apparently a very nasty regression going on in 3.10 for the iwlwifi driver. I couldn't even connect to the 2.4ghz network (hangs at configuring interface) and the 5ghz network caps at 15Mb/s.

Any comment or ideas Woofy?

Last edited by FathisAeril (2013-05-18 23:27:04)

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-19 01:37:06

Well, I'd say at the very least you have made a bit of progress in finding some better stability in your network. I believe that the card is *supposed to* jup all over the place in terms of the Bit Rate. As far as I could tell, it was totally normal.

The only thing I can say about trying to figure out why 3.10 is giving you the issues it is would be that you might have to start digging through git commits. Are there any known changes to the code between these two kernels? Back when we were in the beginnings of a stable 3.8.*, I decided to try the 3.9rc* from miffe's repo (and compiling my own once). Interestingly it worked very well, with the exception of the wifi, which didn't work at all. It wasn't until just before 3.9 was released as stable did my interwebs begin working again on that kernel. So don't think that this very early rc (for which the merge window has only just closed) is going to mirror that of the final product.

BTW, have you seen if there are any bug reports regarding this in the kernel bug tracker? If your results are this consistent between the two, maybe it would be worth having it looked into. I don't posess the technical skill to tell you where in the source it may be wrong, but for those who do have this ability, I am sure there would be more interest in such a problem. It's worth a try at least.

FathisAeril · 2013-05-19 16:27:11

I'll look into reporting the issue, rc2 should be coming out tonight and if its not fixed in that changelog then ill report it and hopefully get it fixed by rc3 or rc4.

Just wanted to say thanks Woofy, you've been a big help and the assistance is very appreciated. Hope ya have a good one!

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-19 18:52:07

Yeah no problem. I really hope this issue gets resolved. I do enjoy Intel HW, as they are so good about open-source (with the exception of their binary firmware blobs). So it would be nice to see people have as consistent performance from their WiFi card as everything else Intel makes.

Besides that, when shopping for a wireless card, Intel is one of the few where you can actually really be sure of what chipset you are getting since they make and use their own. Since my machine will only accept some four cards, and none of them are old enough to be used in many of the *BSD family, I went looking for a USB WiFi adapter that would work. I finally found a micro USB WiFi adapter with a Ralink chipset that is reported to work, but searching for a compatible device was horrible because hardly any vendor wants to tell you that they are just rebranding someone else's work.

FathisAeril · 2013-05-21 16:21:44

Reported upstream. https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58591

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-21 16:25:20

I am interested to see what comes of this.

dragomang87 · 2015-06-14 08:24:29

Edit:

Last edited by dragomang87 (2015-06-14 16:06:14)

WorMzy · 2015-06-14 20:08:15

Hi dragomang87, welcome to the forums. Possibly you realized that this was an old topic, and tried to rectify your post by blanking it.

We usually frown upon necrobumping and post blanking, but I'm going to assume the best and just lock this topic now. Please do take a moment to acquaint yourself with the forum etiquette, however.

Closing.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-05-16 19:23:31

[Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#2 2013-05-16 19:35:16

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#3 2013-05-16 19:44:47

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#4 2013-05-17 15:45:59

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#5 2013-05-17 15:59:38

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#6 2013-05-17 16:11:28

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#7 2013-05-17 17:19:47

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#8 2013-05-17 17:36:03

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#9 2013-05-18 03:58:19

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#10 2013-05-18 04:50:35

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#11 2013-05-18 05:56:54

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#12 2013-05-18 06:14:36

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#13 2013-05-18 17:47:12

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#14 2013-05-18 23:15:49

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#15 2013-05-19 01:37:06

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#16 2013-05-19 16:27:11

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#17 2013-05-19 18:52:07

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#18 2013-05-21 16:21:44

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#19 2013-05-21 16:25:20

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#20 2015-06-14 08:24:29

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

#21 2015-06-14 20:08:15

Re: [Upstream bug. Reported.] NetworkManager not using Wireless-N?

Board footer