Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked
From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: zmodem vs kermit
Message-ID: <25165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 2 Jun 89 01:01:28 GMT
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 38

This afternoon I conducted a series of experiments comparing the
speed of zmodem and kermit for file transfers over the link depicted
below:

ATT 6310 (SCO Xenix) ==> leased 9600 baud line ==> Develnet Switch ==>
	packet switching network ==> SUN (Unix)

On the receiving (SUN) side I used

time rz -e

time kermit -p m -i -e 1000 -r

Using a binary file of 100K and a text file of 50K, kermit consistently
required (roughly) 50 percent more elapsed time and 50 percent more billed
time on the receiving machine than did zmodem.  Each file was run twice
under each protocol with only trivial differences in times.

It may not be obvious from the documentation, but zmodem may be run from
within kermit.  For example, on my Xenix installation, from within kermit

! sz < /dev/tty1a > /dev/tty1a [-options] files(s)

activates zmodem to send file(s) to a previously initiated rz -e session.
I generally use a pd version of CU in preference to kermit on the transmit
side because the former requires much less memory.

I hope this information is of interest to at least a few others.

Earl H. Kinmonth
History Department
University of California, Davis
Davis, California  95616
916-752-1636 (2300-0800 PDT for FAX)
916-752-0776 (secretary)
ucbvax!ucdavis!ucdked!cck (email)
cc-dnet.ucdavis.edu [128.120.2.251]
	(request ucdked, login as guest)