Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!faatcrl!jprad
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Re: Amazed by NCOMM 1.92 and XPR!!!
Message-ID: <1254@faatcrl.UUCP>
Date: 23 Apr 91 13:55:08 GMT
References: <1991Apr18.181303.25160@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ
Lines: 26

231b3678@fergvax.unl.edu (Phil Dietz) writes:

>I just tried the new version of NComm, and boy, am I amazed!  It has
>built in XPR transmission protocals and are they fast!  I downloaded
>off of a 19.2k direct connect fiber-optic network with both JRCOMM1.01 and
>Ncomm1.92 to see which was faster.  To my amazment Ncomm transferred
>around 1850 cps whereas jrcomm hit around 1550 cps.  I didn't believe my 
>results so I downloaded another 300k file to test again.  Sure enough, it
>peaked out at 1850 again!  I didn't believe it again, so I figured out the CPS
>via my calculator.  Te average CPS over the entire transfer was
>jrcomm1.01 1565 CPS and ncomm1.92 1849!
> 
>How can an external packet/library format such as XPR beat an inline
>optimized zmodem code that jrcomm has?

  You obviously had something setup wrong because a download is *entirely*
dependent on the sender, you can only recieve file as fast as it is sent.

  Off hand, the three things that kill a JR-Comm transfer are the space
check, file saver and XON/XOFF handshake options.  Willing to bet that
you had one or more of these active, did you?

  BTW, I checked out 1.92 myself, it still can't upload (which is the
benchmark for any FTP) as fast as JR-Comm.

  -jack-