Subj : Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
To   : fusion
From : Digital Man
Date : Fri Aug 18 2023 16:42:36

  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: 88.7øF, 33.0% humidity, 10 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
 * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

.