home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Columbia Kermit
/
kermit.zip
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19980901-19981211
/
000278_news@newsmaster….columbia.edu _Sun Nov 8 11:49:19 1998.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
2020-01-01
|
3KB
Return-Path: <news@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Received: from newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.35.30])
by watsun.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA15096
for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:49:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from news@localhost)
by newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA29937
for kermit.misc@watsun; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 11:49:18 -0500 (EST)
Path: news.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!jaltman
From: jaltman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Altman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: sluggishness of c-kermit vs. dos kermit
Date: 8 Nov 1998 16:49:17 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <724i2d$r8j$1@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
References: <Pine.A41.4.05.9811072149240.101268-100000@homer37.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: watsun.cc.columbia.edu
Xref: news.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:9484
In article <Pine.A41.4.05.9811072149240.101268-100000@homer37.u.washington.edu>,
Kent B Erickson <kbe@u.washington.edu> wrote:
: The subject title sums it up. Using C-Kermit for os/2, v5A (191), seems
: to be overall slower than using kermit for dos v3.16 (or even v3.14). For
: example, I am writing this using C-Kermit, under os/2, to log in to the
: computer at U of W. As I type, the delay between striking a key and its
: echo on screen must be about twice as slow as it is when I do the same
: thing under dos + mskermit for dos. All of the settings, as best I can
: tell, are the same. Moreover, file transfer seems somewhat slower under
: C-Kermit, though I have not tested this yet. (Actually, I do have some
: emperical evidence. For varios reasons, I had to download a huge biniary
: file. Under mskermit, I was getting about 3(+) k cps; under
: c-kermit, exactly 2.5 k cps plus/minus 5cps, c-kermit gives one a lot of
: data.) Any ideas as to this discrepancy?
For the most part it is operating system overhead. You can read about
tuning methods for OS/2 in the online documentation.
C-Kermit for Os/2 5a(191) is many years out of date and is no longer
supported by the Kermit project. The current Kermit for OS/2 is
Kermit 95. See http://www.kermit-project.org/os2.html for details.
: Now on a different matter--file transfer. I have a 33.6 Digicom
: modem. Yet even after tweaking Kermit (Dos or C- versions) I cannot seem
: to get much more than 2500 cps rate for binary file tranfers. (Somewhat
: faster, of course, for text files.) Now surely there must be a way to get
: faster transfers, even over the ordinary phone line that I am using (it
: seems to be a fairly clean connection). The UW modems are relatively fast
: at least 19.9 or 28.8.
: I would very much appreciate any suggestions for improving this
: performance. Of course, my experience may be `normal', then I would like
: to find that out too. Perhaps we can take a pole...
You make no statements about what connection speed is actually being
negotiated by the two modems. My guess is that it is not 28800.
Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer * Kermit-95 for Win32 and OS/2
The Kermit Project * Columbia University
612 West 115th St #716 * New York, NY * 10025
http://www.kermit-project.org/k95.html * kermit-support@kermit-project.org