Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!bhhome.ci.net!bill From: bill@bhhome.ci.net (Bill Heiser) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Auto-dialing, Auto-redialing under SLIP [FreeBSD 1.1] Date: 15 Aug 1994 11:05:21 GMT Organization: The Internet Access Company Lines: 19 Message-ID: <32ni5h$bj9@sundog.tiac.net> References: <RICK.94Jul29131023@vox.trystero.com> <32j131$1i0@news.bu.edu> <CuJ6vp.8rv@calcite.rhyolite.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bhhome.ci.net vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) writes: >fast they carry SLIP or PPP data. About the only time I'd expect one >system to be faster than another on the same modems is if one is more >likely to drop bytes, and so cause TCP/IP timeouts and retransmissions. The comparison I made was between a LINUX 1.1 system and a FreeBSD 1.1.5.1R system. I switched the same modems between systems. The interactive performance felt significantly better on FreeBSD than on LINUX. Now I am testing with PPP on LINUX .. it feels similar to SLIP, but has a definite edge because it doesn't exhibit the frequent "long pauses" I saw with SLIP. I can only assume that the LINUX implementation of SLIP is very buggy. There also seem to be bugs in the LINUX networking code, causing either SLIP or PPP to "hang" if I try to perform multiple simultaneous sessions across the link (i.e. like several different SLIP sessions, or FTP and TELNET, etc). -- Bill Heiser: bill@bhhome.ci.net, heiser@world.std.com