From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 7 05:26:03 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id FAA25034 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 05:26:03 -0800 Received: from grunt.grondar.za (grunt.grondar.za [196.7.18.129]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id FAA25022 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 05:25:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grunt.grondar.za (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA27865; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:23:54 +0200 Message-Id: <199502071323.PAA27865@grunt.grondar.za> X-Authentication-Warning: grunt.grondar.za: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: "Christoph P. Kukulies" cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, mark@grunt.grondar.za Subject: Re: SLIP (ping time over 14400) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 15:23:54 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > What are the usual turn around times when pinging a host over a 14400 > SLIP link resp. what ftp rates can one expect? > > I have a link running and it shows 200 ms. The ftp rate is significantly > below 1KB/s. > > Would ppp give me better results? I use a KA9Q 286/16 as a dedicated router on a leased line. If I am moving data to/from my service provider (actually my work) I frequently see transfer rates of 1.4K on compressed data and up to +- 3.5 k on highly compressible stuff. BTW I am using PPP and 14400 modems with v42/v42bis enabled. Close pings are usually just over 300ms (like 310-340). PPP is the better thought out protocol. Strictly speaking it is ever so slightly _slower_ due to some protocol overheads, but one can improve this by employing VJ header compression. Most PPP routers and software can handle this. Good luck -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200