Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!decwrl!sgi!vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Are sockets the wave of the future?
Message-ID: <67707@sgi.sgi.com>
Date: 25 Aug 90 22:00:34 GMT
References: <9008242107.AA19843@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1990Aug24.220021.10122@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: guest@sgi.sgi.com
Distribution: comp
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 23

In article <1990Aug24.220021.10122@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rja7m@paisley.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson) writes:
> ...[one of many paeans to TLI]...


AT&T and others have been selling TLI with socket libraries for almost 4 years.
For about that long, I've been asking about performance and compatibility.
I have been privately told many unflattering stories, but have still not
found any customers or vendors who will speak publically or authoratively.

How fast are TCP user-process-to-user-process byte transfer over TLI?
How compatible are the several socket libraries and kernel-emulators?

A good TCP-with-sockets benchmark is the BRL benchmark "ttcp".  Since ttcp
compiles and runs directly over 4.3BSD compatible systems, it would be a
good measure of both speed and compatibilty.  FTP is not interesting in
this context, because it measures many things, not least file system
performance.  Ttcp is available from several places via FTP.  At least one
vendor, and rumor has it others soon, ship both source and object for ttcp
in standard products.


Vernon Schryver
vjs@sgi.com