[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

(completely solved) Re: [Feedback needed] "brcmsmac" wifi driver in testing

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:23:23 +0000, Camaleón wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:07:33 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:


>> BTW, there appears to be a significant problem with your wifi channel
>> selection. That is,
>> 1. There are actually 3 useable channels in the wifi spectrum: 1, 6,
>> 11.
>>    (Yep, regulations changes from country to country, but...) By
>>    operating at 9th channel, you will be interfering with signals in
>>    both 6th and 11th channels. Hence, prefer either 1, 6, or 11.
>> 2. If you want a higher range, prefer lower channels. That is, 1st
>>    channel will reach further distances compared to 11.
> That's a very good idea. I will try -time permitting- to set the AP in
> another channel. Lower ones (1-6) seem to be with less interferences
> from other neighbour APs I have close to me. Will post any finding :-)

Well, I could finally solve this annoying problem with the wifi adapter.

I first tested with channel 1 and 2 (nothing), with channel 1 and no 
security at all (nothing) and also with channel 2 and WEP (nothing)...

I started to think in a hardware problem.

And so it was... now this card is working *perfectly* with the suggested 
driver (brcmsmac). The guilty here was the AP itself (the Thomson DSL 
router). Dunno why the same AP works fine with a second wifi card but it 
seems to render completely inoperative when joined the embedded broadcom 
wifi card. What a pair of dumb devices!

I brought another AP (a Zyxel 660HW-D1 DSL router) with the usual 
configuration (channel 9 -it was setup to "auto" and it selected this 
channel automatically so I left untouched- and wpa-psk encryption) and to 
my surprise the broadcom card now connects in miliseconds with a 100% of 
coverage (from the next room!), link is stable and download speed is very 
fast. It seems a complete different card! 

Occam's razor hits again... simplest things tend to be right ones.

Did I already say I hate wireless connections? Nevermind, I'll repeat 
again: I-hate-wireless-connections }:-)



Reply to: