home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19950528-19950726
/
000374_news@columbia.edu_Sun Jul 16 05:37:53 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
3KB
Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu with SMTP id AA22631
(5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>); Sun, 16 Jul 1995 01:37:58 -0400
Received: by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu id AA10176
(5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for kermit.misc@watsun); Sun, 16 Jul 1995 01:37:57 -0400
Path: news.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!jaltman
From: jaltman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Altman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: HELP! Kermit file transfer has slowed!
Date: 16 Jul 1995 05:37:53 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 41
Message-Id: <3ua8jh$9tu@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
References: <3u4gfs$ptd@fohnix.metronet.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: watsun.cc.columbia.edu
Apparently-To: kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
In article <3u4gfs$ptd@fohnix.metronet.com>,
Joseph Huber <jhuber@fohnix.metronet.com> wrote:
>I'm running ckermit for OS/2 5A(191) on my PC under OS/2 WARP; my
>internet provider has HP9000's and is running ckermit 5A(190). I
>connect to my provider via com2 and a Practical Peripherals PM144MTII.
>
>For some reason that I have not been able to determine, my kermit file
>transfer rate has dropped from near 1600 cps to 1300 cps. I've noticed
>that I am frequently using sliding windows; when my kermit file
>transfer was working well, I rarely used more than one window.
>
>When using sz and rz (the p programs on OS/2) the file transfer rate
>still remains near 1600 cps. I've tried just about everything I can
>think of, packet size, control prefixes, window size, buffer size, but
>I can't resolve the problem. The only changes I've made recently were
>to upgrade to WARP and to ckermit OS/2 5A(191) (from 190).
>
>If anyone has any insight into this problem, I'd be very grateful.
>
>Thanks!!
Sorry for taking so long to follow up on this one.
But I have been unable to determine exactly what may be the problem.
On my system 191 actually gets somewhat better performance than
190. The differences between the two have to do with the priority
settings of various threads.
Questions that come to mind are:
how much RAM do you have?
what is the DISK I/O Priority setting in CONFIG.SYS?
What other processes are running and at what Priority levels?
It could be that P runs at a higher priority (and requires less RAM)
so it is therefore less affected by various system setups.
Jeffrey Altman * PO Box 220415 * Great Neck, NY * 11022-0415 * (516) 466-5495
NEW: OS/2 C-Kermit 5A(191):
ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/archives/cko191.zip
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/cko191.html