Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU!ron
From: ron@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  More on TCP performance
Message-ID: <8710041343.AA18256@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 4-Oct-87 09:43:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.8710041343.AA18256
Posted: Sun Oct  4 09:43:07 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Oct-87 05:49:46 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 16

If you think that TCP is bad, you should try some NETEX bandwidth
studies on the Hyperchannel.  It's beyond me how they can make a
protocol custom to the hardware like that and do it so poorly.

Don't forget that it is frequently difficult to get more than 50%
of the available bandwidth (some Pessemists law).  My major problem
with the 10M proteon (which I doubt was changed much in the 80 M
version) is that there is no buffering on the card.  If in servicing
the last packet you frequently miss having the card ready for the
SOM on the next packet.  This packet has to bounce around the ring
again.

Another problem is that 17 Mbits is rapidly the DMA limits of most
of the cheap interfaces (That IS the speed of the UNIBUS).

-Ron