Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU!SCEF0003 From: SCEF0003@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU ("James N. Petersen") Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: Performance of the PD Packages Message-ID: <9104041437.aa27983@louie.udel.edu> Date: 5 Apr 91 00:08:22 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 23 X-Unparsable-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 91 08:54:18 PLT In a recent article, Joe Strong writes: >Would someone mind relating to me what kind of performance they've >gotten out of the KA9Q software on Ethernet, doing FTP, versus some >of the official commercial packages? >Machine1: DOS, 386/25, WD8003e, KA9Q software >Machine2: Xenix, 386/20, Excelan Board, Excelan TCP/IP package. >FTP put from 1 to 2 = 70KB/sec. >FTP put from 2 to 1 = 10KB/sec. >Is there some known bug, like WD8003E's not being able to swallow >back-to-back packets, that I'm missing here? Although I am using CUTCP and not KA9Q, I see the same sort of differences when using CUTCP and transfering to either an IBM 3090 or a DecStation 5000. Transfers from the DOS machine occur rapidly, transfers to it are much slower. I have assumed that it is because of the disk access speed on the PC, but perhaps I am wrong. Suggestions. Jim