Subj : Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
To   : fusion
From : Digital Man
Date : Fri Aug 18 2023 04:42 pm

 Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
 By: fusion to Digital Man on Fri Aug 18 2023 05:19 pm

> On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...
>
>  DM> Ymodem-G has almost 0 overhead, so (without compression or other
>  DM> cheats), it's really not possible for Kermit (the protocol) to be
>  DM> faster than Ymodem-G. And Zmodem is only a little slower than Ymodem-G.
>
> i can't replicate this. i get 1.12MB/s sexyz to sexyz (syncterm) with zmodem
> and 0.86MB/s with ymodem-g sexyz to sexyz. certainly an improvement over
> mystic's but something is a bottleneck.
>
> this is on an i7-3520M .. no spring chicken for sure. both transfers used
> 38-50% cpu during the transfer. (for comparison a 65MB/s transfer to the
> same machine uses 8%)
>
> i can totally see gkermit outperforming ymodem-g.

YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).
--
                                           digital man (rob)

Rush quote #30:
You can do a lot in a lifetime if you don't burn out too fast
Norco, CA WX: 88.7�F, 33.0% humidity, 10 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

You are viewing proxied material from cvs.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.