topic Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? in Wireless

topic Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? in Wireless https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471148#M14698 <P>UAPSD is a little bugger ... Let us know .. </P> Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:11:06 GMT gstef1 2014-07-29T03:11:06Z Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471144#M14694 <P>I just bought a bunch of laptops for my company and I am having a serious problem with our wifi cards. We purchased Win7 64 bit computers with the Intel DualBand 7260N chip. When I ping the router, I get on average, 60+ms round trip times on the wifi. With a different (old) laptop, connecting to the same AP, I get around 3ms to the same router.</P><P></P><P>I took a couple laptops home, to rule out anything at work, and I see the same results at the house. On my personal laptop, I can ping the home router and get 2ms response times. With the 7260N, I get 50+ms. </P><P></P><P>I have tried like three different drivers from intel's website, this happens on 5ghz and 2.4ghz. Please help.</P><P></P><P>-Aaron</P> Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:35:13 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471144#M14694 asouz5 2014-07-29T01:35:13Z Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471145#M14695 <P>No problems with my Dual Band 7260 on my laptop here. Maybe your router is having latency problems with Intel WiFi cards only. What is the adapter of your other laptop?</P><P></P> <P>Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]</P><P> </P>Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. <P><A>C:\Windows\system32</A>>ping 192.168.1.101 -n 200</P> <P>Pinging 192.168.1.101 with 32 bytes of data:</P><P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64<p> Reply from 192.168.1.101: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64<P> </P>Reply from 192.168.1.101: byt... Tue, 29 Jul 2014 02:40:03 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471145#M14695 tvete 2014-07-29T02:40:03Z Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471146#M14696 <P>When you measure pings as a base line for connectivity you need to consider many things. Interference layer 1 and layer 2. Client / AP config etc. </P><P>Since you did some testing already. See what is different in configs on the client side in the driver of the 2 laptops. </P><P>Also try disabling UAPSD if enabled in the driver. </P> Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:02:07 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471146#M14696 gstef1 2014-07-29T03:02:07Z Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471147#M14697 <P>So far the best solution is to disable U-APSD and reboot the laptop. Pings come down from 40ms to like 2ms... I only brought home 2 laptops, but that procedure right now works. I'll know more tomorrow.</P> Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:08:03 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471147#M14697 asouz5 2014-07-29T03:08:03Z Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471148#M14698 <P>UAPSD is a little bugger ... Let us know .. </P> Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:11:06 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471148#M14698 gstef1 2014-07-29T03:11:06Z Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471149#M14699 <P>Thanks you all for providing feedback on this matter. Here you can also find more information about this:</P><P><A href="http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/CS-034875.htm">http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/CS-034875.htm</A> <A href="http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/CS-034875.htm">http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/CS-034875.htm</A> </P><P></P><P>Kevin M</P> Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:29:27 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471149#M14699 Kevin_M_Intel 2014-07-29T12:29:27Z Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471150#M14700 <P>Basically the problem is with U-APSD... I have tried the past 4 driver releases, all have the same poor performance unless you turn off U APSD. Interesting thing I noted...It appears that turning off U-APSD does not take affect until a restart, while enabling it, brings back the bad performance quickly, without a reboot. </P><P></P><P>At least on one revision of drivers (I think the one from April).</P> Wed, 30 Jul 2014 00:30:27 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471150#M14700 asouz5 2014-07-30T00:30:27Z Re: Dual Band 7260n horrible ping times? https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471151#M14701 <P>FWIW, disabling U-APSD on my 7260 (in a ThinkPad T520) totally resolved my issue where I could not reconnect after resuming from sleep. I changed the setting right after I saw this thread about 2 weeks ago, and it reconnects virtually every single time - it might happen once a week, where it happened every time (a dozen times a day) before. I also seem to have consistent throughput now, and the 5Ghz networks no longer mysteriously disappear. (I waited a couple of weeks to make sure I wasn't imagining things.)</P><P></P><P>My notebook demonstrated these symptoms both at home (Asus RT-AC66U) and at work (Cisco infrastructure, various models) - and *poof* - all is well once I disabled U-APSD.</P><P></P><P>I've had this adapter for a little over a year now and followed a lot of threads on this forum, but didn't have any major issues until about 2 or 3 months ago. Perhaps that coincides with the first driver containing U-APSD being installed on my notebook? I realize it was a later addition, or at least the setting/option appearing in the driver was.</P><P></P><P>Thanks!!</P> Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:07:49 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Wireless/Dual-Band-7260n-horrible-ping-times/m-p/471151#M14701 BLaut 2014-08-13T14:07:49Z