BBS Toolkit/BBS Toolkit.iso/gt_power/gttutors.zip/GTTUTOR2.TXT

Text File | 1987-07-20 | 25KB | 429 lines

*****************************************************************
Following  is a second conversational 'chat' between James  Davis
and  Raymond Wood designed as a follow-up of the first  one.   It
takes  on the form of a tutorial again due to the high number  of
requests for same following the first one we released.

Note, this is an update of the original text in that I discovered
an inadvertant error in the original that confused SEAlink and
Zmodem relative to their implementation of network flow control.
*****************************************************************

D:  Shall we start this off with a kind of outline as to where  I
think  we  will  go  with it?   We  discussed  many  fundamentals
involved  with communications in the first tutorial and ended  up
discussing  several of the more popular file transfer  protocols.
This  session  will  go farther into the area  of  file  transfer
protocols, technology such as the 9600 bit per second modems  and
error  correcting modems with MNP or ARQ, and how one goes  about
intelligently selecting a protocol given a basic understanding of
their  environment.  For example, while Ymodem was  described  as
the 'King of the hill' when it comes to performance, that is  not
true  if you are using one of the packet switching networks.   It
is also not true at 9600 bits per second.

W:   You  mentioned 9600 and MNP.  I thought that  there  was  no
industry standard  for 9600 and that it is only practical if  the
other  end is talking the same language with the  same  hardware?
Also   that   MNP  was  implemented  in  the  hardware   of   the
modem...where am I wrong ?

D:   You're  not wrong.  GT PowerComm (12.20) now  supports  9600
baud.  I believe the newest version of Qmodem (3.0) does as well.

Paul  Meiners,  the  author of GT  PowerComm,  has  a  USRobotics
HST9600 baud modem and he is using it every day.  I, too, have  a
USR  HST9600 as well as a Microcom MNP modem that I  am  testing.
There are two quite different error correction methods in use  at
this   time.   MNP  (Microcom  Networking  Protocol)  which   was
developed by Microcom and ARQ (a general term used by USR to mean
Automatic  Retry  Request protocols - theirs  being  specifically
called USR-HST [High Speed Technology]) and these two methods are
totally  incompatible.   Even the methods used to  modulate  9600
baud  signals  appears  to be  incompatible.   However,  we  have
successfully  connected these two different brands of  modems  in
'reliability' mode.  The USR has the ability to 'fallback' to MNP
at  1200 or 2400 baud where MNP has established a standard.   (Of
course, that makes sense for our PCP users).

We  have  also connected with other USR HST9600 modems  and  seen
that  we  have outstanding performance at 9600  baud.   (We  have
cruised  along at about 945 cps during transfers of more  than  3
million  bytes  so far).  Further, GT is such an  efficient  comm
program that we are able to drive these modems at 19,200 bits per
second from the systems while the modem is communicating at  9600
to  another modem - for additional performance.  It is  for  this
very  reason  that  we had to implement flow  control  -  so  the
transmitting modem does not overrun.  I will discuss this in more
detail a little later in this tutorial.

So, while you are correct that there is no standard at 9600 baud,
that  does  not  mean  that  9600  baud  modems  are  necessarily
impractical.  We are determining to what extent it is a  problem.
What  concerns me the most is the different  modulation  methods.
Nevertheless, it will not stop our  support  of 9600 baud.

Finally, you are right again, MNP (ARQ) is a hardware function  -
but it can and should be a transparent one.  I note, for example,
that  since  I began testing these modems I have  connected  with
several  (many)  others and, as a result,totally  eliminated  the
line  noise  that was present prior to the MNP connection  -  ie,
there  appears  to  be  more to MNP than  just  error  free  file
transfers.  Thus, we must look at it.  And, in doing so, we  will
test  the various non-error checking protocols that are  used  in
such  environments  (Ymodem-G,  for example).  It is  as  much  a
learning  curve  for  us as for the users - we just  MUST  do  it
behind the scenes for credibility sake.

W:   I  understand the necessity to stay  up  with  technological
advances affecting your your product.  What I am not to clear  on
is exactly what is MNP or ARQ and why have they come about.   Can
you shed some light on this?

D:  Since 2400 baud modems are NOT really 2400 'baud' - they  are
2400 bits per second,  1200 baud modems - it has been clear  that
the limit of reliable communications in terms of speed using  the
bandwidth  of  the  existing telephone  circuitry  has  not  been
reached.  However, it is also clear that as we more densely  pack
information  within  that  bandwidth  the  incidence  of   errors
increases.    The  manufacturers  investigated,   starting   with
Microcom, various error detection and recovery methods that  were
hardware  assisted.   That  was the the birth  of  MNP  (Microcom
Networking  Protocol).   There  has been  an  evolution  in  that
technology  which  results in several 'levels' of  MNP  available
today.  The higher the level, the more function is included.   At
any level, MNP merely insures that the data received by the modem
is what was sent by the sending modem.  That is INSUFFICIENT,  in
my  opinion.   The  only  valid scenario  is  one  in  which  the
receiving  COMPUTER is insured that it received  accurately  what
the  sending COMPUTER sent.  There are cables,  ports,  circuits,
timings,  etc.  that MNP DOES NOT CHECK.  Thus, it seems  that  a
combination   of  software  and  hardware  error  detection   and
correction methods is necessary.

Almost  all  file  transfer protocols check  what  I  believe  is
necessary  - computer to computer accuracy.  What, then,  is  the
advantage  of  MNP?   Well, to begin with,   it  SHOULD  be  more
efficient.   If  the software need only be  concerned  with  data
bytes  and  not CRC and other control bytes, then  it  should  be
faster.  Further, the newer levels of MNP are more efficient than
you  might  have guessed.  They strip off the start bit  and  the
stop  bits  from  each  byte, for  example,  and  that  increases
transfer  performance  by 20% (8 bits per byte rather  than  10).
Further,  they  send 'compressed' data  via  internal  algorithms
which increases performance even more.   On the other side of the
ledger,  MNP and ARQ technology has some built  in  disadvantages
from a performance point of view, they are, after all, no  longer
just high speed pipes but are now full computers (usually  Z80's)
and  are  prone  to  modest  slowdowns  at  the  higher   speeds.
Nevertheless, at 9600 'baud' it is possible to obtain about  1100
cps  rather than 960 and at 2400 'baud' it is possible to  obtain
upwards of 290 cps rather than 240.

Not to forget, as I mentioned earlier, MNP is active at all times
while  protocol  transfers are active only during  a  transfer  -
thus,  line noise is effectively filtered out even while  we  are
chatting.   There  are  several possible advantages,  and  a  few
disadvantages - not the least of which is the lack of standards.

W:  Jim,  I understand what you just said and from that it  would
seem  that  MNP is needed at both ends to do the  job.   Is  that
correct?  Also is MNP proprietary for just Microcom modems?

D:   It  is obviously true that MNP (or ARQ) must exist  on  both
ends  to be functional.  When my Microcom modem connects  with  a
non-MNP  modem  it recognizes that fact and reverts  to  being  a
standard  Hayes  compatible  modem.  Further, when  the  USR  HST
connects  with  a Microcom that has MNP, there is a  fallback  in
baud  rates  to  2400  baud  in both  modems  so  that  they  can
communicate  using MNP.  That is likely to be overridden  by  the
users, however, via disabling MNP or ARQ in such situations.  (My
opinion only).  However, it is reasonably certain that 9600  baud
connections cannot be established without error correction  being
functional.  Further, while Microcom  MNP is wider used than  ARQ
(USR's  method), the USR method of supporting both (at  different
baud rates) is more flexible and argues for USR.  It may be  that
we obtained the wrong 9600 baud modems at this time.  It is  part
of the testing and learning process.

As  to  the proprietary nature of MNP, according  to  USRobotics,
Microcom  has placed at least the first three levels of MNP  into
the public domain.  It is certain that they have been generous in
licensing out at least the lower 'levels' to other manufacturers.
What alternative do they have?  Unless a standard evolves,  these
are contests that damage the future, not advances it.

W:   It  seems  obvious that standards in this area  are  to  the
advantage  of all concerned.  Is there a  standards  organization
looking into this?  I would like to have 9600 baud capability and
error   free  transmission.   However,  I  would  also  like   to
communicate with whomever without having to worry about whats  at
the other end.  Do you see what I am concerned about?

D:   Of course.  It is a paraphrase of my earlier discussion.   I
think  the  only 'standards organization' that  is  effective  is
called   the   marketplace.   The  huge  power   of   the   Hayes
organization, because of its modem standard, is likely to be  the
telling blow to other manufacturers - when they finally put there
own  9600  baud technology - may well become  the  new  standard.
Because  of this I believe it is premature to buy 'long' in  such
security issues as USRobotics and Microcom.

W:  Whenever I talk to the Hayes people at a convention or  trade
show, they know or say nothing about 9600 development.  I do  not
know  if this is just policy or not.  I think that when  they  do
introduce  9600 that it would not necessarily mean that  whatever
they  do will be the standard.  I may be naive, but I would  like
to believe that will be the case.  I say this only because others
are  active in meeting a need and they are not or appear  not  to
be.

D:  No argument there.  My point remains valid only if Hayes does
something in the near term.  Intel saw what happens when they get
over  confident and let competition pass them by when they  first
put the 8080 micro-computer chip into the marketplace.  They  had
it  made, save only that the Z80 took it ALL away from them.   It
was  an awfully long time before they we were able to  come  back
and Motorola nearly did it to them again.  So, while Hayes has by
far  the  largest  visible shelf space in  the  industry  at  the
moment,  USR (my guess) or Microcom could steal it away from lack
of responsive attention on their part.

W:   It would seem that you need compatible hardware  above  2400
baud  and  compatible software as well for  truly  effective  and
increased performance.  Does Paul Meiners' Megalink protocol  tie
into this somehow?

D:   Megalink  is an extremely  efficient  protocol  particularly
designed  for  the network environments like PCP and  the  higher
baud  rates.   It  is 'network friendly',  which  means  that  it
recognizes  and honors flow control imposed by the network.   For
efficiency  it  uses 512 byte packets (4 blocks), it  is  a  full
streaming  protocol,  which means it does not ever  stop  sending
unless  it receives a NAK saying a packet was received in  error,
and it is batch oriented.  It uses block 0 header information, as
do all the '...link' protocols so that the resulting file is  the
same size and properly time and date stamped, and it uses 32  bit
CRC rather rather than 16.

I  think  it is time to go back to the earlier tutorial  and  add
some more concepts at this time.

Since our last discussion there has been increased popularity  in
two relatively new file protocols.  The first of these is  called
SEAlink and the second is Zmodem.  You will recall in the earlier
discussion  that 'windowing' techniques are beginning  to  become
available  in  the  file  transfer protocols.   There  is  now  a
Windowing  Kermit,  for  example,  as  well  as  WXmodem.   These
programs  attempt  to obtain better performance by  avoiding  the
start-stop approach used by earlier protocols where after sending
a  packet  of  data the transmitter would stop and  wait  for  an
Acknowledgment that the packet had been properly received  before
sending  the  next  one.  Windowing  protocols  assume  that  the
packets are being received without error and do not wait  between
packets.   The  receiving systems DO send ACK signals,  its  just
that  the transmitter is not waiting for them.  Assuming  all  is
well, time has been saved as a result.  When an error does occur,
a  NAK  is returned to the transmitter and associated  with  that
signal  is  the packet number that was in  error.   Assuming  the
transmitter  still  has  that packet at its  disposal  it  merely
retransmits it and proceeds.

That is the limit, of course.  In order to be able to  retransmit
a  packet it must still be in the transmit buffer and the  buffer
has  a  finite  length.  All windowing protocols  set  a  maximum
'window  size'.   This means that there can be no more  than  'x'
packets sent without a reply before the transmitter is forced  to
wait for that reply else error recovery would not work.  This  is
no  big  deal at 1200 baud, but at 2400 and above  it  is  really
quite limiting.

SEAlink  is a windowing protocol.  It has as an  added  advantage
over WXmodem, for example, two important features: it uses 3 byte
CRC for increased reliability and it uses a window size of 6
rather than the 4 used by WXmodem.  It is NOT 'network-friendly'.

What  is 'network-friendly'?  It is a design that recognizes  and
honors  XON/XOFF  signals that are placed on a  packet  switching
network when that network (like PC Pursuit) becomes so busy  that
it is nearly choking on data.  When the network places an XOFF on
the line, a network-friendly recognizes it for what it is  rather
than  a coincidental configuration of bits in a byte of data  and
stops  sending data!  It stops until it receives an XON from  the
network.  Why is that important?  Well, it is my experience  that
a  huge  number  of subscribers now exists for  PCP.   Forcing  a
network to exceed its ability to handle data could only crash the
network.   PCP would not allow that.  They have intelligent  node
controllers  that selectively will abort a 'hog' link  that  does
not  honor  its earlier 'request' to wait a  little  (via  XOFF).
Thus,  using  a  protocol that is not  network-friendly  is  like
saying: "I don't care if I am a hog.  And, if you don't like  it,
then abort me."  As usage continues to increase, the network will
oblige that attitude.

The  result  of being network-friendly is two fold  in  terms  of
'hits'  against  performance: 1) while you are  waiting  for  the
network to send you an XON you are not sending data and 2)  there
are  MANY extra bytes of control information that  definitionally
must be sent along with your data.

Let  me  explain that last point as it is not  obvious,  I  know.
XOFF  and XON are simply bytes, just like the letter 'A'  or  the
digit  '4'.  If no data file contained those bytes then it  would
be  easy  to  implement  a  network-friendly  protocol.   Recall,
however, that it is almost always true that data is sent in  some
form  of archive or compressed format.  The resulting  bytes  can
have  ANY  configuration  despite what  the  un-archived  or  un-
compressed  file  looks  like.   In other  words,  the  odds  are
essentially  100%  that the data files that you send  consist  of
probably  many bytes that look like XOFF or XON.  That cannot  be
allowed  to  happen.   The  protocol finds  all  such  bytes  and
encapsulates  them  in  what is called an  escape  sequence  that
consists  of a special byte (usually the DLE character)  followed
by a 'folded' duplicate of the byte that needed to be camouflaged
(the  XON  or  XOFF).   Folding merely means  that  the  byte  is
transmogrified  in  some  way  (usually  via  being  sent  as   a
compliment  -  XORed with all 1's).  Further, the  DLE  character
itself must also be escape sequenced for this method to work.  It
is a random process that results in indeterminate performance for
any particular file.  That is, if a file had none of these  three
special  byte  combinations in it, then the time to  transmit  it
would be minimal where a file that happened to have many of  them
will  have  that  many  more bytes to send  in  order  to  escape
sequence  it.   In  such a case the file  would  take  longer  to
transmit than the first.  Same protocol, different performance.

On  balance, the designers of SEAlink did an excellent job.   The
performance  of SEAlink is essentially as good as WXmodem yet  it
is more reliable and uses the 'link' header.  Why is SEAlink becoming
so  popular?   Because  it is a protocol supported  under  a  BBS
system  called  OPUS which is quickly replacing most of  the  old
FIDO systems all over the country.  It is a good protocol.Because
it is not network-friendly it does not bother with (it doesn't have
to) escape coding anything.   That is probably a fatal mistake to
its  future particularly as the networks get crowded.

The next one of interest is called Zmodem.  This is almost always
found  as an external protocol.  That means it is included  in  a
file  (DSZ.EXE)  that  is  shelled to by  the  host  or  terminal
communications program when it is needed.  As such, it requires a
lot of memory compared to the internal protocols.  But because of
that,  it is easy to install as a protocol offering of  many  BBS
systems.   There  is  another  and  more  significant  difference
between Zmodem and the other protocols we have already  discussed
so  far.  Instead of being start-stop in nature, and  instead  of
being  windowing,  it  is  a  streaming  protocol.   A  streaming
protocol  does  not expect to get ANY ACK signals back  from  the
receiver  until the transfer is complete and successful.   If  an
error  occurs  it  will  receive  a NAK  and  it  is  up  to  the
transmitter to insure that it can recover from any NAK  received.
Thus,  because  it  is not a windowed  protocol  it  never  stops
transmitting  unless there is an error.  That means it should  be
faster than even the windowing protocols.

Zmodem uses 32-bit CRC for reliability and it is network-friendly.
In some ways it is not very user-friendly, however.  For example,
in every other protocol there is a way to
terminate  the transfer should you wish to do so while it  is  in
progress.   The usual manner is to press Cntl-X one or two  times
and  wait  till the other end recognizes the  abort  request  and
finally stops.  In the case of Zmodem you must do so 5! times in
a row to stop it.  I suggest that not 1 user in a thousand  knows
that.  It is a popular protocol as a result of its performance on
the  packet  switching  networks.

Included  in  GT  PowerComm 12.20 is  the  newest  file  transfer
protocol.   It  is called MegaLink.  It uses 32-bit  CRC,  it  is
network-friendly, is faster than Sealink, and like all the 'link'
named  protocols  it uses a header record that results  in  exact
size and proper time and date stamping of the resulting file when
received.   Most  interesting  about  MegaLink  is  how  well  it
performs  at  the very highest baud rates.   Running  comparative
tests of four different protocols, all sending the same 880K file
to  the same machine and at 9600 baud, I obtained  the  following
results:

    WXmodem   60.4 % efficiency  580 cps
    SEAlink   75.6 %             725 cps
    Ymodem    77.6 %             744 cps
    Zmodem         unsuccessful*
    MegaLink  98.5 %             945 cps

In order, WXmodem did so poorly for two reasons: at 9600 baud its
window limit of 4 is the same as not having a windowing technique
at  all.   Second,  there are ACK signals coming  back  for  each
packet  sent.  In the 9600 baud arena, the transmission  is  only
9600 baud in one direction and only 300 baud in the other!  It is
transparent,   more  or  less,  to  the  users  as   the   modems
automatically change which direction is at 9600 baud based on the
volume of data that needs to be sent in each direction at any one
time.   Further, while one character (the ACK itself at 300  baud
is  not significant, the ACK/NAK response is actually either  two
or  three  bytes  rather  than one  as  you  might  expect.   The
additional byte(s) is for packet number (and it's compliment).

SEAlink is being driven about as fast as it can go.  It is not as
fast as Ymodem because of the small window it uses (like WXmodem)
and because it has so many more characters to transmit because it
is network-friendly (escape sequences).

Ymodem  is  going as fast as it can.  It  is  effected  primarily
because  of  the start-stop nature of its function and  the  fact
that  the  ACK/NAKs  are coming back at 300 baud.   Here  we  see
clearly  an indication that the days of the start-stop  protocols
are numbered.

As an aside, Ymodem-G would have performed MUCH better because it
has  no  error  correction capability, thus it  has  fewer  bytes  to
transmit and no turnaround delays.  Remember, however, that error
correcting modems are only capable of insuring that the data sent
from  one  modem is received reliably by the other.  As  will  be
seen  in  the  discussion later  about  Zmodem's  total  failure,
Ymodem-G would not have reliably worked in this test.

It  is  interesting that Zmodem failed altogether at  9600  baud.
The  reason is a little subtle and it leads to the next  thing  I
wanted to discuss anyway.

I earlier mentioned that the MNP and ARQ modems are able to strip
the  start  and  stop bits from bytes, (they must,  thus,  be  in
synchronous  mode rather than asynchronous), and that  they  also
may  use  a  form  of compression  beyond  that  for  performance
reasons.   I  further stated that at 9600 baud the  modem  I  was
using was able to perform at 1100 cps rather than 960.  This  may
have  caused  you  to  ponder: if the modem  is  connect  to  the
computer  at 9600 baud that means the computer can only send  960
characters  per second to the modem for subsequent  transmission.
So how can the modem send it any faster than it receives it?

The answer is that it cannot do so.  The method to use to  obtain
these  extraordinary performances is to connect your computer  to
the  modem  at 19,200 baud and utilize a buffer in the  modem  to
match  up the input with the output.  Naturally, as the  data  is
arriving at the modem much faster than it is leaving, there  must
be  a way to stop the input.  Well, you guessed it, we  use  flow
control just like the networks when they are getting choked.   In
particular, we sense that the modem's Clear To Send signal is  on
or  off.   When off, we stop sending data to it and when  on,  we
instantly start cramming data at it at 19,200 baud.  In this way,
the modem is able to send data at 1100 cps.  Naturally, the modem
must  be  able  to  control its CTS  signal  for  this  to  work.
USRobotics HST is capable of doing so.

I showed you what happened to Zmodem when we tried to transfer to
it  at in excess of 9600 baud - it failed.  That is not  entirely
the fault of Zmodem, however.  Unless the receiving system is  of
the AT class of computers you will probably find that  regardless
of  what  kind of software you are using with it,  the  modem  is
faster  than the computer's ability to feed it or eat  from  it!!
Now that is amazing, isn't it?  We now have modems that are paced
by  the  computer they are attached to instead of the  other  way
around.

Incidentally,  unless  the receiving computer is connect  to  the
receiving  modem  at  19,200  instead  of  9600  baud,  and   has
implemented some form of flow control to signal the sending modem
that  it's  buffer  is full, 1100 cps transmissions  to  it  will
naturally fail when the buffer is overflowed.