Poor wireless signal

[onraad]

Dear

I have a laptop (Asus Z92U) with a fresh installation of OpenSuse11 - KDE4. To use the wireless network card (Broadcom 43xx) I've installed the firmware using fwcutter. The wireless connection works however it always indicates a poor signal strength. Even if I place my laptop right next to my wireless router (Linksys WRT 54G) I still have a poor signal. I can use the internet but it feels slow and troubled.

Before, I used to use Windows XP or Vista and the signal strength was good.

What can I do to make the signal reception better? I look forward hearing suggestions!

Best regards!

[lwfinger]

What version of the BCM43xx do you have? Use '/sbin/lspci' to tell if you don't
know.

Larry

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Have you ruled out the slowness is not just with the Internet part of
the connection (vs. your own wlan)? Any benchmarks showing a
significant change along those lines in terms of time to do things?
What sites are you hitting and when?

Good luck.





onraad wrote:
| Dear
|
| I have a laptop (Asus Z92U) with a fresh installation of OpenSuse11 -
| KDE4. To use the wireless network card (Broadcom 43xx) I've installed
| the firmware using fwcutter. The wireless connection works however it
| always indicates a poor signal strength. Even if I place my laptop
| right next to my wireless router (Linksys WRT 54G) I still have a poor
| signal. I can use the internet but it feels slow and troubled.
|
| Before, I used to use Windows XP or Vista and the signal strength was
| good.
|
| What can I do to make the signal reception better? I look forward
| hearing suggestions!
|
| Best regards!
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIkd+u3s42bA80+9kRAikLAJ4+IZKFjjG9gqLY6HTobB 2MygrlQwCghaqQ
BtUltQcziNvcIgnSQsTT9iQ=
=w2a7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[onraad]

This is my network card:

00:09.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4318 [AirForce One 54g] 802.11g Wireless LAN Controller (rev 02)

And haven't done a benchmark or so but I notice the difference compared to Windows XP or Vista which I used perhaps two weeks ago. I usualy do some basic Google searching and visit some websites like "www.destandaard.be" etc. I'm surfing at different times. Sometimes its already in the morning at 8h and sometimes it's during the night untill 02h. I don't use streaming video or audio and I'm not downloading something meanwhile.

I notice the difference when I just type in some words to search, it often takes about 40 or 50 seconds before Google responds and clicking on links also takes long times before it brings up the new site. And before, using Windows, most websites just opened in a matter of seconds.

[lwfinger]

onraad wrote:
>
> I notice the difference when I just type in some words to search, it
> often takes about 40 or 50 seconds before Google responds and clicking
> on links also takes long times before it brings up the new site. And
> before, using Windows, most websites just opened in a matter of
> seconds.
>
>

This sounds like the IPV6 problem. Unless disabled, the IPV6 name server lookup
has to time out for every reference.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So Google come up instantly for you to do a search, but everything you
click on from there takes time? How about browsing your access point or
router via wireless? If that is also slow you may have a wireless
problem but if not I'd go with Larry's suggestion. If that's the case
I'm surprised vista isn't slower since it also uses ipv6 and there were
issues right after it released as a result.

Good luck.





onraad wrote:
| This is my network card:
|
| 00:09.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4318 [AirForce One
| 54g] 802.11g Wireless LAN Controller (rev 02)
|
| And haven't done a benchmark or so but I notice the difference compared
| to Windows XP or Vista which I used perhaps two weeks ago. I usualy do
| some basic Google searching and visit some websites like
| "www.destandaard.be" etc. I'm surfing at different times. Sometimes its
| already in the morning at 8h and sometimes it's during the night untill
| 02h. I don't use streaming video or audio and I'm not downloading
| something meanwhile.
|
| I notice the difference when I just type in some words to search, it
| often takes about 40 or 50 seconds before Google responds and clicking
| on links also takes long times before it brings up the new site. And
| before, using Windows, most websites just opened in a matter of
| seconds.
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIkgsC3s42bA80+9kRAihhAJ9THg5yb5/S8EcDAtfDPzNT7NvlRwCfaAzz
UXJFoGOoiSwmS+nTFdIvvD8=
=YJDG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[dragonbite]

Originally Posted by lwfinger

onraad wrote:
>
> I notice the difference when I just type in some words to search, it
> often takes about 40 or 50 seconds before Google responds and clicking
> on links also takes long times before it brings up the new site. And
> before, using Windows, most websites just opened in a matter of
> seconds.
>
>

This sounds like the IPV6 problem. Unless disabled, the IPV6 name server lookup
has to time out for every reference.

This wouldn't do anything about the signal strength, would it?

I was in the library last week and the most I got was 76% strength which seems odd to me, but I'll admit I'm new to wireless in general (esp. in Linux).

[lwfinger]

dragonbite wrote:
>
> This wouldn't do anything about the signal strength, would it?
>
> I was in the library last week and the most I got was 76% strength
> which seems odd to me, but I'll admit I'm new to wireless in general
> (esp. in Linux).

If you are expecting absolute accuracy with signal strengths, forget it. Many of
the drivers, if not most, generate a signal that is near 100% when you are 3
inches from the AP, and that are at least qualitative in their values. Windoze
may give different values. That is closed-source and we have no idea what they do.

[onraad]

Originally Posted by ab@novell.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So Google come up instantly for you to do a search, but everything you
click on from there takes time? How about browsing your access point or
router via wireless? If that is also slow you may have a wireless
problem but if not I'd go with Larry's suggestion. If that's the case
I'm surprised vista isn't slower since it also uses ipv6 and there were
issues right after it released as a result.

Good luck.







onraad wrote:
| This is my network card:
|
| 00:09.0 Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4318 [AirForce One
| 54g] 802.11g Wireless LAN Controller (rev 02)
|
| And haven't done a benchmark or so but I notice the difference compared
| to Windows XP or Vista which I used perhaps two weeks ago. I usualy do
| some basic Google searching and visit some websites like
| "www.destandaard.be" etc. I'm surfing at different times. Sometimes its
| already in the morning at 8h and sometimes it's during the night untill
| 02h. I don't use streaming video or audio and I'm not downloading
| something meanwhile.
|
| I notice the difference when I just type in some words to search, it
| often takes about 40 or 50 seconds before Google responds and clicking
| on links also takes long times before it brings up the new site. And
| before, using Windows, most websites just opened in a matter of
| seconds.
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - Enigmail: A simple interface for OpenPGP email security

iD8DBQFIkgsC3s42bA80+9kRAihhAJ9THg5yb5/S8EcDAtfDPzNT7NvlRwCfaAzz
UXJFoGOoiSwmS+nTFdIvvD8=
=YJDG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Indeed it was the ipv6 issue. When I disable it, everything pops up faster. And about the Vista, I'm not sure but since I always liked to play around and 'tweak' my Windows, chances are I've disabled ipv6 in Vista too I guess.

But anyway, thank you guys!

Greets