Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!drj100 From: DRJ100@psuvm.psu.edu (Daniel R. Jeuch) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Bad SLIP performance (was Re: SLIP, IP Routers and Named Pipes) Message-ID: <90283.131102DRJ100@psuvm.psu.edu> Date: 10 Oct 90 17:11:02 GMT References: <1990Oct6.033237.27399@cs.umn.edu> <12628063537.11.BILLW@mathom.cisco.com> <1990Oct9.221843.20145@bnrgate.bnr.ca> <4401@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> Organization: Penn State University Lines: 21 In article , bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) says: > >We see very reasonable performance with compressed-header SLIP or PPP >between Sun-4/60s over a pair or Trailblazer Plusses: 1.3-1.5Kb/sec >FTP throughput with PPP, nearing the modem's advertised pipe diameter. >Interactive response OK too, though not what you'd call "pleasant" if >you're used to fatter hoses. I haven't tried high values of MNP or >HST. > >Don't bother with Classic SLIP, particularly not with TBs. Unfortunately, here at Penn State, all we have is MNP5 9600 V.32 dial-in lines... I get throughput with classic SLIP (PSU also doesn't use compression) of somewhere between .8-.9kb/sec. Not great, but it's free for Penn State students... (Kind of important for my budget!) TN3270 does suffer, though! ----- Daniel R. Jeuch Microsoft Corp. Student Rep. 10 Vario Blvd., Box 185 DRJ100@PSUVM, drj100@psuvm.psu.edu State College, PA 16803 (814) 867-4622, (800) 232-5129