Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool.mu.edu!samsung!usc!apple!agate!linus!linus!mbunix.mitre.org!jfjr
From: jfjr@mbunix.mitre.org (Freedman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: XMS vs EMS (performance)
Message-ID: <1991Jan30.174909.26476@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 30 Jan 91 17:49:09 GMT
References: <1991Jan30.134859.22160@linus.mitre.org>
Sender: news@linus.mitre.org (News Service)
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford MA
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: mbunix.mitre.org

In article <1991Jan30.134859.22160@linus.mitre.org> jfjr@mbunix.mitre.org (Freedman) writes:

>   I have a Compaq 386/20e running DOS 3.3 with 4 megs of memory.
>I have the Clarkson packet drivers installed and I am building
>a TCP/IP analysis tool. One of the things I would like to do
>is to sit on the net and just receive and record all packets
>(time stamp them) for a while. I can receive and I have
>a millisecond timer (thanks for the help folks). The packets
>can come at me fast - up to 1.5k a packet with 2-3 millisecond
>separation-. My receiver runs at interrupt level as does my timer.
>Both EMS and XMS involve some fiddling around at interrupt level.
>I am concerned about stepping on my own feet with either approach.
>I am not concerned with portability or price. Just performance.
>full protected mode might be nice but I have to support the
>packet drivers too. I can get more memory or fancier hardware
>if I really need it(I think;) ).

  As a follow up - anybody have any product recommendations?

                         Jerry Freedman,Jr


fodder


fodder