Why is my 2200BG performing so terribly? (WITH POLL!)

[Goetterdaemmerung]

I've got an X40 with a built-in 2200BG. While connected to any number of different (cisco-branded) 802.11g access points across campus, the quality is pathetic indeed. Ping times will normally stay <20 ms, with a forgivable 5% packetloss or so. Signal strength is great.

However, a FTP connection to a machine on campus yields about 10 kbs for a few moments and then drops. HTTP connections are almost as bad in their quality. Putting these loads on the connection will cause the packetloss to skyrocket to 90-100%. Obviously, I have a problem.

I've tried using IBM Access Connections and XP's built in software. I've also tried the packaged drivers provided by IBM and the (newer) ones provided by Intel. I've tried fiddling with all the parameters found in the card's device manager properties page. I've had IBM send me a new wireless PCB, which behaves no differently. I've also tried 'netsh interface ip reset'.

A linksys WPC11 PC Card gets a predictable 350kB/s speed; packetloss is also <10%. The WPC11 also gets a signal strength about one third that of the built-in 2200BG. This WPC11 is the oldest and cruddiest wireless card I've seen, but it easily beats the 2200BG, and proves that my problem is not with the environment or the WAPs.

Also notable is that, upon the arrival of the X40, I wiped it and put a fresh XP install on it. The 2200BG would detect networks with phenomenal signal strength, but would not associate. I eventually reinstalled windows, which fixed that problem and landed me in my current predicament.

Is my problem software, or hardware (bad minipci slot, motherboard?)?

IBM tech support wants me to send in my machine.

[Trip]

Problems with Intel's wireless cards are very common. It's not that they malfunction; they just don't seem to work well for an awful lot of people.

Your best bet may be to get a non-Intel wireless card.

[bill bolton]

> Problems with Intel's wireless cards are very common

ROFL. In fact the Intel cards commonly work very well.

If you look at enough forums where wireless connectivity gets discussed, you will find all wireless solutions get bagged for having problems by some group, somewhere. The primo solutions that work well for one group are often the very same ones that get bagged in another group. Its all very faddish!

Working methodically through the multiple variables associated with wireless connectivity problems takes time and patience, which seems to be an unpopular message in these days of instant gratification, but is usually rewarded by a workable outcome.

Some wireless products just will not work well in some situations, but unless you can form a soundly based view on why that is happening, just changing hardware on hearsay advice can very quickly become a very expensive way to a solution.

Cheers,

Bill

[bill bolton]

> IBM tech support wants me to send in my machine.

If you have a an antenna fault in the X40, that's the only way you are likely to get it resolved... unless you are feeling very brave in terms of pulling your screen assembly apart.

Cheers,

Bill

[Goetterdaemmerung]

Do you have any a posteriori reasoning to think that the antenna may be at fault, based on what I said in my post? If so, I will send it in and go without a computer for a few days.

[bill bolton]

> Do you have any a posteriori reasoning to think that the
> antenna may be at fault

"I've had IBM send me a new wireless PCB, which behaves no differently."

So, you have an (reportedly) low performance PCMCIA card with an antenna external to the Thinkpad case which works.

You have also swapped out the Mini-PCI wireless card, so its not the wireless card hardware per se.

That basically leaves software or the internal antenna.

There has been plenty of advice in these fora on the software (which certainly has its moments) and I presume you have researched, and acted on the driver etc advice.

That leaves the internal antenna arrangements.....

Cheers,

Bill

[jdhurst]

Deep in the older IBM documentation around wireless cards, they said that order of install was important, so you can try the following:

1. Get the newest driver for the Intel card and the newest version of Access Connections (A/C).
2. Uninstall A/C
3. Restart
4. Uninstall NIC
5. Don't restart
6. Install the newest NIC driver
7. Restart
8. Install A/C
9. Restart

That process is in the IBM documentation and it has worked for me on the Intel 2200 card and the IBM Atheros card. I use and like the IBM card, but I have implemented the Intel 2200 card and it works.
... JD Hurst

[Goetterdaemmerung]

Hey Bill,

I've since discovered one more thing. I've gotten my hands on a new linksys WRTG56G, which is sitting on my desk in my room. Both the 2200BG and the WPC11 run at the correct speeds on this thing (2MB/s and 350kB/s actual, no significant packetloss). This seems to rule out antenna failure.

The only thing that jumps out at me now is that the APs which are being problematic with my 2200BG are being shared with other users. I.e. the 2200BG does not play nicely with other users, while the WPC11 has no problem.

Also, the problem goes away if I force the 2200BG into .11B mode, supporting this a bit more.



ian

[bill bolton]

> which is sitting on my desk in my room. Both the 2200BG and the
> WPC11 run at the correct speeds on this thing (2MB/s and 350kB/s
> actual, no significant packetloss). This seems to rule out antenna
> failure.



I suggest that you do some SERIOUS reading about 802.11.? wireless technologies. An AP sitting in your room is a very different thing in terms of propogation than one siting in another buidling.

Cheers,

Bill

[Goetterdaemmerung]

Right. I should have mentioned that I've sat 3 feet below the campus APs which I have problems with without any change in behaviour (= problems), and I tried moving my machine a good 500 feet through my home -- until signal strength was low -- which worked 'fine'.

I did mention, though, that my problems occur on these busier APs regardless of my 'excellent' signal strength and 54mb link rate.

Tell me if this changes your opinion.

[a31pguy]

Lot of bugs in the drivers and incompatibilities with certain AP chipsets (notably the Linksys APs) at extended ranges (meaning 15 feet or more) with power saving mode turned on. I switched over to the 2915 A/B/G card - and it works fantastically. I highly suggest moving away from the 2200.

[Goetterdaemmerung]

Yeah I talked again with an IBM supervisor and they again refused to send me another card. The only thing they had in stock (and from the sounds of it, would ever have in stock) besides a 2200 was the A/B/G card, which obviously is slightly more valuable.

Ironically, a31pguy, the linksys works great at any distance. It's the high quality cisco stuff across campus which gives me problems.
For now I'm having access connections force 802.11B mode when connecting to anything but my home router. Meh.

[a31pguy]

On a recent wireless project - there were some problems with the 2200 and the intel centrino drivers and cisco ap using roaming. Intel had since logged a bug and suggested a workaround - but we had since moved on to mandating the 2915 or Cisco cards. The 2915 works well with LEAP, WPA, and roaming. Which is of a large concern with campus networks.

[Goetterdaemmerung]

Happen to have a link or more information about the bug?

ian

[a31pguy]

http://support.intel.com/support/wirele ... 015906.htm

The problems occur when the wireless speed is degraded by selecting an AP that is farther away. Newer drivers seem to address this somewhat.