FreeLists / arachne / [arachne] Re: Slow download speed with Arachne on DSL line

[Ron Clarke <ariadne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!

Hi Folks,

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:27:31 -0500
"Glenn McCorkle" <glennmcc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
> 
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:34:52 +0000, Udo Kuhnt wrote:
> 
> > Hi all!
> 
> > Ever since I switched to DSL in April 2001, Arachne has been much slower
> > in downloading large files from the internet than other download tools
> > for DOS - about 1/3rd to 1/4th. Which is strange since I remember that
> > one of the reasons for switching from Netscape to Arachne in 1998 was
> > that it was faster than Netscape. I already told Michael Polak about
> > this back then, but never received a reply.
> 
> > The slow download speed, which I thought was due to Arachne transmitting
> > redundant protocol information or something was annoying but tolerable -
> > until I recently upgraded to a DSL speed of 2048 Kb/s. Now, the speed of
> > other tools like CURL has risen proportionally whereas Arachne's speed
> > has remained more or less the same.
> 
> > In a test in which I downloaded a large file from the server of my ISP,
> > CURL reached 235 KB/s, whereas Arachne only achieved about 29 KB/s, that
> > is only 1/8th! So I am definetely not talking about a small drop in
> > download speed when Arachne is used but about most of the bandwidth
> > being unused.
> 
> > Also, it has become obvious that this cannot be caused by redundant
> > protocol info being transmitted, otherwise there would have been at
> > least a proportional increase in download speed.
> 
> > Has anyone experienced similar problems with Arachne on a broadband
> > connection?
>
> 
> Hmmmm, You noticed this too ???
> 
> In Nov of last year, I too 'upgraded' from 56k dialup to 1.5mbit/sec DSL
> 
> My experience is the same as yours.
> 
> Arachne (all versions back to and including v1.0), give me an absolute
> max through-put of 60kb/sec (600kbit/sec)
> 
> All of my other apps (DOS, Win98 and Linux), achieve full-speed of
> 150kb/sec (1.5mbit/sec), max through-put.
> 
> I have a feeling that the problem lies in this 16bit version of the
> WATTCP library we are using to achieve our TPC/IP stack.
> 
> All of my other apps (DOS Lynx v2.85.1, Win98 and Linux), are using a
> 32bit TCP/IP stack.
> 
> The only DOS app I have which is also uses a 16bit TCP/IP stack
> is FTP.EXE with-which I also have very slow through-put rates.
> 
> This however is still not conclusive proof that 16bit vs 32bit is the
> problem.
> 
> Do you happen to have any DOS, Windows or Linux http apps that use
> a 16bit TCP/IP stack (but for http not ftp) ?
> 
> If we can find some other 16bit http apps that also have slow
> through-put rates.... that would confirm my suspicians.

   I think that wget also uses the WATTCP library.
Do you find this also slow on DSL ?

Regards,
         Ron

-- 
Ron Clarke 
AUSREG Consultancy      http://www.ausreg.com
Tadpole Tunes           http://www.tadpoletunes.com
This mail sent to you from sylpheed running on penguin-power
                  Arachne at FreeLists                  
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --