From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Oct 19 12:50:03 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id MAA29801 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:50:03 -0700 Received: from etinc.com (etinc-gw.new-york.net [165.254.13.209]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA29789 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:49:56 -0700 Received: from trumpet.etnet.com (trumpet.etnet.com [129.45.17.35]) by etinc.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA28405; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:03:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:03:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199510192003.QAA28405@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Joe Greco From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Re: Bragging rights.. Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> >Now if you can find yourself a TA that can do 230.4 or 460.8, and the >> >ET/5025 is able to do that in async, that might be a benefit. I've >> >retrofitted 16550 ports to run at such speeds and the CPU does eventually >> >reach a point where it has difficulty keeping up on a consistent basis >> >(although this is more likely a driver issue...?) >> >> 115k minus 20% async overhead.....Mostly I've heard about 70k or so for >> async links....If you don't think that 20-30% is worth an extra hundred >> dollars, then I guess you're entitled to that. It is, however, a consideration. > >Really??!! > >I had a 386DX/40 that routinely chatted with a 386DX/16 at 115200 (UUCP over >TCP/IP as a SLIP connection) and consistently hit > 10.5K/sec -- the number >ran around 11K/sec during non-peak times here at MEI, and I attribute the >difference to our network rather than any of the FreeBSD boxes involved (our >network traffic peaks at wire saturation at times, and never falls below >10%). 90K still isn't 128k though??!!!!! So what does this have to do with ISDN, anyway? You realize, of course, that you're going through a Telephone switch digitally with ISDN..... >The 386/40 was also running the uucico for one side... > >These two systems had jacked-up serial ports. When I ran them at 230.4K, I >started to hit serial overruns, but with TCP/IP retries they still were >capable of hitting 19K/sec (which amazes me!!!) However at 19K/sec the >386DX/16 was definitely swamped, and the 386DX/40 was having troubles too >(it was also maintaining the uucico, several uncompress/gzip's concurrently, >another uucico running over ANOTHER SLIP link over a V.FC modem connection >to sol.net). And with a sync card your 386-16 wouldn't have overloaded...... >For those who are wondering what the hell I was doing :-) I was receiving >a full news feed. Because I could not directly connect to the local network >(firewall restrictions), I came in through a carefully gated, hardwired SLIP >connection into the terminal server, and ran UUCP to gather batches of news. >That was the high speed link :-) I then turned around and tossed it into >sol.net's WAN structure with an ordinary POTS/V.FC modem. In the process, >because the news was only compressed, I uncompressed it and used gzip -9 on >it to achieve more virtual throughput :-) Yes....I think that this is a typical scenario...what does this have to do with anything?????? .of course, we could do on-the-fly compression (without all of the fancy crap) and do better as well. db ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25