home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.20041116-20060924
/
000247_slash_dev_slas…_2000@yahoo.com_Tue Feb 7 14:29:27 2006.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2006-09-27
|
2KB
Path: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!panix!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Mark Sapiro" <slash_dev_slash_null_2000@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: Modem hangup problem
Date: 4 Feb 2006 07:55:40 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <1139068540.667200.46950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1138662868.847718.244330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<ZX3Ef.7306$JO5.3602@trnddc04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.182.169.133
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1139068545 29306 127.0.0.1 (4 Feb 2006 15:55:45 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:55:45 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20060111 Netscape/8.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.182.169.133;
posting-account=iQNWIg0AAAAD2fStXNC9nwGlPdSqjWrI
Xref: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:15495
Kelvin Smith wrote:
>
> Have you played with maximum packet sizes? I've found that sometimes
> reducing the maximum size makes a borderline connection less likely to
> choke. (SET RECEIVE PACKET n; you might want to try n=90 to start with.)
My understanding of the OP is that this is a straight text
send/capture, not a protocol transfer, so things like packet size
aren't relevant.
I'm guessing it's some kind of flow control issue. Maybe the receiver
is choking and tries to stop the data and the sender keeps sending and
eventually chokes the receiving modem buffer or something like that.
Possibly reducing the speed of the sender will help if that's going to
be an option in the real case. Or maybe 'set flow none' on the receiver
which would result in data loss rather than a lost connection if this
is the issue. Not a good thing, but it might help pinpoint the problem.
--
(for email use this address please - you can figure it out)
Mark Sapiro msapiro -at- value net Any clod can have the facts;
San Francisco Bay Area, California having opinions is an art. -
C. McCabe, The Fearless Spectator