Telnet vs Serial Connections - Protocols

This is a discussion on Telnet vs Serial Connections - Protocols ; I have had several inquiries to why a PC telnet connect appears to be slower in screen draws, etc. then a serial connection at 38400. We use SCO Unix and UnixWare servers with K95 for are emulator on windows. Can ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Telnet vs Serial Connections

  1. Telnet vs Serial Connections

    I have had several inquiries to why a PC telnet connect appears to be slower
    in screen draws, etc. then a serial connection at 38400. We use SCO Unix
    and UnixWare servers with K95 for are emulator on windows. Can anyone offer
    suggestions on this?

    Chris



  2. Re: Telnet vs Serial Connections

    "Chris Henschen" wrote in message news:...
    > I have had several inquiries to why a PC telnet connect appears to be slower
    > in screen draws, etc. then a serial connection at 38400. We use SCO Unix
    > and UnixWare servers with K95 for are emulator on windows. Can anyone offer
    > suggestions on this?
    >
    > Chris


    Chris;
    I have noticed a difference in perceived response between
    dialups/serial and telnet/ssh connections with K95 also. I have also
    noticed a perceived difference between response of K95 telnet/ssh and
    some other clients like PuTTY. I have always said that PuTTY is high
    performance like a Lotus Elan while K95 is high performance like a BMW
    M5. Sorta like the difference between quick and powerful.

    My guess is it may be the way K95 assembles outgoing packets compared
    to others using network connection and compared to K95 character
    output?

    Maybe Frank or Jeff will give us a little primer?

    Regards…Dan.

  3. Re: Telnet vs Serial Connections

    In article ,
    Chris Henschen wrote:

    : I have had several inquiries to why a PC telnet connect appears to be
    : slower in screen draws, etc. then a serial connection at 38400. We use
    : SCO Unix and UnixWare servers with K95 for are emulator on windows. Can
    : anyone offer suggestions on this?
    :
    If a Telnet connection is via Dial Up Networking (i.e. by modem), then of
    course it's slower than a directly dialed (non-TCP/IP) connection because of
    the additional TCP and IP protocol overhead.

    But if you're speaking of a local-area network connection, the effect could
    be explained by:

    . Overloaded local network (look at the link light).
    . The network connection is being shared by other applications that
    are using most of the bandwidth.
    . High load or low memory on the Windows PC when you happen to be using
    Kermit 95 on a network connection.
    . A loose or faulty network board or cable, spurious interrupts, etc.

    If the Telnet host is outside the local network, you can add Internet
    congestion to the list.

    Under normal conditions, Kermit 95 is plenty fast on all versions of
    Windows (95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP), even on slow PCs like the 9-year-old
    90MHz Windows 95 Pentium-I machine that I have in the corner, on which a
    1000-line scrolling benchmark takes 4 seconds (compared to about one
    second on 1.7GHz machine):

    ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/utils/ripple.c

    Also see:

    http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/k95faq.html#echo

    - Frank

+ Reply to Thread