Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!sdcsvax!hp-sdd!hoff
From: hoff@hp-sdd.HP.COM (Tom Hoff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Background file transfer WANTED
Message-ID: <1134@hp-sdd.HP.COM>
Date: 12 Jan 88 06:43:47 GMT
References: <2341@cup.portal.com> <804@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM>
Reply-To: hoff@hp-sdd.UUCP (Tom Hoff)
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego
Lines: 23

In article <804@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> jgray@toad.pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Jerry Late Nite Gray) writes:
>In article <2341@cup.portal.com>, Steven_M_List@cup.portal.com writes:
>> one out there); the ability to do background file transfers.
>to get feedback about from members of the net. I have noticed that some of the
>terminal emulators we have tried here (Vterm, Procomm and a few others) have
>a problem with port servicing latency when running high buad rates and
>there other things competing for the processor's time. These "other things"
>Any comments anyone?

I've had no problems running Procomm in a DoubleDos background task while it's
doing a 9600 baud Ymodem batch transfer.  Of course I may be cheating 'cause
I'm using an 8mhz 80286 machine, but the background task only gets 1/3 of the
cpu.  I'm not sure if Procomm is sending a lot of XOFF's, but I haven't hooked
up a protocol analyzer to check this out.  I suspect that a well written
program that does background file transfers will use as much cpu as it needs
and give the remaining cpu to the foreground task, or take advantage of XON/
XOFF to throttle the host computer.

--Tom

-- 
     Tom Hoff (...!hplabs!hp-sdd!hoff)
	"Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not a spokesman!"