Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
Williams: That's when I reach for my revolver...
Posted Mar 24, 2009 0:10 UTC (Tue) by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
Posted Mar 24, 2009 10:03 UTC (Tue) by dcbw (guest, #50562)
There's no reason why you need a longer association timeout if things work correctly. It should not take more than 20 or 30 seconds to associate with an access point. If you are near the margins of the network, move closer, deploy another access point in the weak coverage area, or get a better client antenna. If there is a lot of intereference, you need to reconfigure the wifi network to use non-overlapping channels, or use the 802.11a band so your network isn't overrun with microwaves from the break-room at lunch.
Hacking around shit with one-off config options that don't actually fix the source of the problem is not the way to make things better; it's a way to create an unmaintainable, untestable pile of junk.
Posted Mar 24, 2009 10:36 UTC (Tue) by rathann (subscriber, #50815)
Posted Mar 24, 2009 13:17 UTC (Tue) by dcbw (guest, #50562)
I'm opposed to blindly increasing it with no specific reason *why*, and no attempt to figure out what the real casuses of connection failures are.
Posted Mar 25, 2009 11:22 UTC (Wed) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640)
If OTOH only the association is slow, and the rest of networking is reliable, it is a bug somewhere in the stack. And it should be rather fixed than worked around (by adding a configuration option, in this case)
"Make that thing configurable" is often a sign of "cult of workarounds". The cultists prefer enforcing endusers to twiddle settings randomly until things work, instead fixing the underlying bugs.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds