On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:

> Luca Muscariello <luca.muscariello@gmail.com <javascript:;>> writes:
>
> > I don't fully understand your plots but it would be useful to report
> > the  physical rate of the stations.
>
> Yes, well, there's not really one rate to report for each station, since
> Minstrel jumps about a bit and tries different ones.
>
>
I know. Try a simple case, one STA very close one far away. I am able to
get quite stable average PHY rates with minstrel. 5GHz and a free
channel can also help to get low variance in your numbers. A Faraday cage
can also help :) .



> > As a benchmark, if you know the physical rates assuming they are also
> > optimally chosen (by minstrel for instance ) and stations don't move,
> > the long term throughout can be computed ( e.g. for TCP ) assuming air
> > time fairness. Than you can understand if your gain is what you should
> > expect or if the implementation is not yet done.
>
> So far I've just been looking at the figures for airtime (the first
> graph in the blog post). These are the same numbers that the scheduler
> uses to make scheduling decisions. It seems like the scheduler does help
> somewhat, but is not perfect yet. Am definitely lacking a good ground
> truth to compare against, though. Computing the expected throughput
> might be possible, since minstrel does report statistics for how many
> packets were transmitted at each rate. Will look into it; thanks for the
> suggestion :)
>
> -Toke
>