OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#2Will Mavericks have better support of 802.11ac?
Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#3The title should reflect that it's only regarding wifi speed.
Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#4Will Mavericks have better support of 802.11ac?
Than Windows? Apparently not. :)
Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#5[deleted]
Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#6Why would you test wifi speed using afp or cifs? Don't both those protocols dictate a fsync on each block, meaning they are very dependent on rtt which is much longer via radio? If you're testing radio bandwidth you really want to use a protocol without restraints like that, such as rtsp or http. While window size will undoubtedly help here, I wouldn't be surprised to find that windows 8 isn't flushing as often or performs async fsyncs.
Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#7Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#8Will Mavericks have better support of 802.11ac?
From the end of the article:
Based on our and Shimpi's tests, it seems entirely likely that Apple will be able to fix the issue in software, and I would be surprised to see OS X 10.8.5 or OS X 10.9 ship with the same issues.
Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#9Re: OS X is holding back the 2013 MacBook Air’s 802.11ac Wi-Fi speeds
#10A better test is to use something like iperf to see what the underlying TCP limits are like: in the case of something like SMB or AFP, it can be particularly confusing if you haven't adequately accounted for buffering and async writes – I've seen copies which “completed” considerably before the network traffic stopped.
If it is window scaling, adding the following to /etc/sysctl.conf should make a considerable difference by bumping the limits up to values appropriate for >100Mb connections:
net.inet.tcp.sendspace=262144
net.inet.tcp.recvspace=262144