On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...
DM> YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver.
DM> You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM
DM> protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference
DM> X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).

sorry i misspoke. i can see gkermit (and by extension, kermit. just to spell it out) outperforming sexyz's ymodem-g.

you asserted ymodem-g shouldn't have any overhead and should be as fast or
faster than kermit. is that in theory? because i tested ymodem-g with sexyz
and it performs extremely poorly with incredible overhead. (again, sexyz->syncterm)

if i compare to the reference implementation of rz/sz what am i trying to prove? that sexyz's ymodem-g (or zmodem) works better with the reference implementation than with itself? or am i proving both perform poorly compared to kermit?

you mentioned zmodem shouldn't be far /behind/, yet it performs better than
ymodem-g with sexyz.

people are easily using it correctly and getting poor results where they shouldn't be. so they try kermit and it blows sexyz out of the water. after which you chime in and say "use ymodem-g it should be even better!" .. well i'm saying that doesn't pan out in real life.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: fusion to Digital Man on Fri Aug 18 2023 08:23 pm

> On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...
>
> DM> YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver.
> DM> You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM
> DM> protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference
> DM> X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).
>
> sorry i misspoke. i can see gkermit (and by extension, kermit. just to spell
> it out) outperforming sexyz's ymodem-g.

Okay. <shrug>

> you asserted ymodem-g shouldn't have any overhead and should be as fast or
> faster than kermit. is that in theory?

Correct, I'm talking about the protocol itself. Unless you're using a compression feature with Kermit (are you?), it's really impossible for the Kermit *protocol* to outperfrom Ymodem-G protocol over the same TCP/IP link - removing any implementation details. Ymodem-G simply has near zero over head over TCP/IP and no wait for acknowlegement of any subpacket data, so the only want to get *faster* is to use a protocol with literally zero data overhead (e.g. FTP) or to use some kind of data compression.

> because i tested ymodem-g with sexyz
> and it performs extremely poorly with incredible overhead. (again,
> sexyz->syncterm)

"Overhead" refers to the amount of extra data that is sent in addition to the actual payload (file) data. It's not really relevant in that sentence. The overhead is a function of the protocol, not the impplementation. Anyway, okay, so you found gkermit outperms sexyz in your particular test environment. Cool.

> if i compare to the reference implementation of rz/sz what am i trying to
> prove?

Your initial messages said you were comparing Kermit to Zmodem. If that's what you really want to do, use the reference implementation of Zmodem by Chuck Forsberg for your tests.

> that sexyz's ymodem-g (or zmodem) works better with the reference
> implementation than with itself? or am i proving both perform poorly
> compared to kermit?
>
> you mentioned zmodem shouldn't be far /behind/, yet it performs better than
> ymodem-g with sexyz.

Faster than Ymodem-G? Not under my tests. And there's no technical reason why it should.

> people are easily using it correctly and getting poor results where they
> shouldn't be. so they try kermit and it blows sexyz out of the water. after
> which you chime in and say "use ymodem-g it should be even better!" .. well
> i'm saying that doesn't pan out in real life.

Your "real life" test is over a localhost link or a local network? Why on earth would you be using a serial/modem file transfer protocol over a local network (Ethernet, WiFi?) and call that "real life"?
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #2:
Karl (re: killing Doyle): I hit him two good whacks in the head with it.
Norco, CA WX: 83.6°F, 41.0% humidity, 11 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net