Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 13 Jan 1996 15:52:56 +1100
From:      Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
To:        bde@zeta.org.au, nate@sri.MT.net
Cc:        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: PPP transfer rates (was Re: pppd vs ijppp)
Message-ID:  <199601130452.PAA10221@godzilla.zeta.org.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> I get > 2KB/s for /kernel with a lowly 14400 bps modem with DTE at
>> 57600 bps connected to a Linux system with a better modem:

>First of all, how are we measuing throughput?  I'm using ftp transfers,
>which is what I'm assuming both of you are using.

Yes.  I would prefer to use ttcp, but it wasn't available on the
Linux system.

>Using kernel-ppp with VJ compression to a host on the same network as
>the Livinston I'm getting: 795794 bytes sent in 1.7e+02 seconds (4.6
>Kbytes/s)

>Using CSLIP to my home workstation (direct connect) I'm getting:
>795794 bytes sent in 1.6e+02 seconds (4.9 Kbytes/s)

>I'm actually suprised that CSLIP is faster than PPP with VJ compression
>(essentially the same header compression as in CSLIP).  I do know that
>the latency is lower with SLIP vs. PPP.

Cslip has a smaller packet overhead (in bytes) (except when full
compression is used with ppp, IIRC).  Cslip has about twice as
much protocol overhead as termios in the current kernel implementation
and 3 times as much in the current user mode implementation.  This
is without compression; compression adds one or two multiples of the
termios overhead.  E.g., on a 486DX2/66 ISA 16550A to a 486DX33 ISA
16450 at 115200 bps uncompressed:

			- %overhead -
	protocol	read	write	throughput (K/s)
	--------	----	-----	----------------
	cat		 6.7	2.9	11.25
	cslip		 6.7	3.6	10.78
	ppp (kernel)	 9.1	4.3	10.74
	ppp (user)	11.3	6.6	10.80
	zmodem		11.4	5.8	10.73

>However, I'm seeing 'real' numbers using netscape and other ftp's in the
>2-2.7K range, but I see much bigger numbers if I'm on my ISP site
>machines.

Heh.  I see numbers in the range stalled-600 for netscape (often about
30, always low for netscape's home page).  This may be related to the
ping latency of 400-700ms and netscape's i/o strategy and the
overloadedness of the ISP.

Bruce



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601130452.PAA10221>