Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!bellcore!epic!karn
From: karn@epic..bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re: ka9q performance?
Message-ID: <1991Feb2.223338.4076@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 2 Feb 91 22:33:38 GMT
References: <9102012059.aa22267@louie.udel.edu> <NELSON.91Feb2112045@sun.clarkson.edu>
Sender: usenet@bellcore.bellcore.com (Poster of News)
Reply-To: karn@epic.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 16

In article <NELSON.91Feb2112045@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes:
>The 3c501 cannot handle back-to-back packets.  I'm sure that your NeXT
>will send back-to-back packets if your pc is advertising the appropriate
>TCP window.  The solution?  Make the tcp window the same size as the
>tcp mss.

Even better, try replacing your 3C501 with a more modern card. Almost *any*
other Ethernet adaptor will work much better since they can handle the back
to back packets that make up a transfer into a large window. My experience
is that binary file transfers are usually limited by the disk transfer rate
(and MS-DOS overhead) on most PCs. Ascii transfers are slower..

At home I use a no-name Chinese clone of a NE-2000 that cost me about $130
last summer. It works just fine.

Phil