Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!orchid!egisin From: egisin@orchid.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: standard interface Message-ID: <11631@orchid.waterloo.edu> Date: Mon, 9-Nov-87 15:54:37 EST Article-I.D.: orchid.11631 Posted: Mon Nov 9 15:54:37 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Nov-87 03:04:37 EST References: <8711061732.AA04324@opal.berkeley.edu> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 16 In article <8711061732.AA04324@opal.berkeley.edu>, minshall@OPAL.BERKELEY.EDU writes: > If what you are suggesting is a TSR which maps "standardized" > socket calls into "vendor X's TCP calls", then I think this is minimally > acceptable ("minimally" because of my feeling that for high performance one > needs something better than sockets). It would certainly be a wonderful > step over what we have. > Do you have some figures for a high performance low-level interface versus a low performance socket interface on an AT-class machine? The only difference I can think of in the implementation of these two interfaces is that a socket interface would probably copy data between the user process and network "process", and a low-level one probably would not. That amounts to <10% overhead for a tcp that does 1M/sec. (and if an AT can't do 1M/sec, then you should be looking at the hardware and overall implementation, not the interface).