Re: ? rsh/cat vs rcp/ftp over PPP?

Article View: comp.protocols.ppp

Article #72

Back to comp.protocols.ppp Previous Next

#72

From: Karl Fox
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:57

18 lines
1516 bytes

In article <laq57rINN34i@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> Eric.Arnold@Sun.COM
(Eric arnold) writes:

   With PPP, I've noticed that "rsh" ( E.g. 
   "rsh remotehost 'cat <filename' >filename", or whatever -- as long as
   it is a byte stream) is about twice as fast as "ftp" and "rcp".  Is
   there a way around this?  "rcp" and "ftp" are nice facilities,
   especially with wrappers like "ftptool".

I don't get quite the same results, but I do see a small but
significant speed advantage of rsh and ftp over rcp.  I turned up
debugging (I'm using Morning Star PPP, as you might guess :-), and
noticed that rsh and ftp send full size frames (1500 bytes), but rcp
sends 552-byte packets (552=20+20+512).  Both sizes are before Van
Jacobson TCP header compression.
--
Karl Fox, Morning Star Technologies                            +1 800 558 7827
1760 Zollinger Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221                      +1 614 451 1883

Technical Details

Message-ID: <KARL.92Sep14005723@crappie.MorningStar.Com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mstar!crappie.MorningStar.Com!karl

References: <laq57rINN34i@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.protocols.ppp
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mstar!crappie.MorningStar.Com!karl
From: karl@MorningStar.Com (Karl Fox)
Subject: Re: ? rsh/cat vs rcp/ftp over PPP?
In-Reply-To: Eric.Arnold@Sun.COM's message of 8 Sep 1992 21: 02:51 GMT
Message-ID: <KARL.92Sep14005723@crappie.MorningStar.Com>
Sender: usenet@MorningStar.Com
Nntp-Posting-Host: crappie.morningstar.com
Reply-To: Karl Fox <karl@MorningStar.Com>
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
References: <laq57rINN34i@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:57:29 GMT
Lines: 18

Reply to Parent Message