home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Path: sparky!uunet!psgrain!percy!percival.rain.com!nerd
- From: nerd@percival.rain.com (Michael Galassi)
- Subject: Re: bsd386 slip xfer rate disappointing.
- Message-ID: <BuFMzv.383@percy.rain.com>
- Sender: news@percy.rain.com (News maintainer)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: percival.rain.com
- Organization: Percy's mach, Portland, OR
- References: <3542@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:14:18 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- solsman@ra.nrl.navy.mil (Mark Solsman) writes:
-
-
- >Is everyone getting the same response? slip from 386/25 running bsd to
- >a 486/50 running slip8250 & tn3270 yeilds about .8k/second???
-
- >funny, I am using slattach /dev/com2 38400, that should be damn faster than
- >800 bytes/second...
-
- You bet...
-
- >also, as far as the silo overflows , I seem to only get them when I
- >have a packet collision. dont type anything until after xfers, and turn
- >off the damn hashing, and you dont get any overflows... this maybe a side-
- >effect.
-
- Colisions indicated by netstat -i are not collisions, by definition you
- can't have collisions on slip links. The collision counter is incremented
- (counter intuitevly) when the output routine (slstart I think) drops a
- packet instead of putting it into the com port's ring buffer. They say
- this is to improve interactive responsivenes and that tcp will take care
- of it but... I've got a hacked if_sl.c which I'll mail to those who know
- enough to look over the changes and decide if they are indeed good. End
- result of these changes here is that my machine routes between two 38.4K
- slip, one 19.2K slip, and one ether with very few errors (this is a 386/25
- w/ 2meg ram & 1 floppy).
-
- -michael
- --
- Michael Galassi -- nerd@percival.rain.com
-