[arachne] Re: Slow download speed with Arachne on DSL line
From: "Udo Kuhnt" <048321887-0001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: glennmcc@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:54:57 +0000
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:27:31 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
Hi Glenn!
>> 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 ???
Yes, I could not help but notice it. ;-)
> In Nov of last year, I too 'upgraded' from 56k dialup to 1.5mbit/sec DSL
> My experience is the same as yours.
So I am not the only one who suffers from this problem.
> Arachne (all versions back to and including v1.0), give me an absolute
> max through-put of 60kb/sec (600kbit/sec)
Amazing - that is twice as much as I have been able to achieve, with a
somewhat slower connection type.
> 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.
I think you are probably right - I had a lower speed with an old version
of CURL, too, but with the version I just compiled a few days ago and
linked with the latest version of WATT-32, it suddenly went up to max.
> 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.
I do not think that 16-bit is the problem - but it might be a problem
with an older version of the WATTCP library. May I ask which version
of this lib Arachne uses?
> 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.
Well, that should not be a problem, since WATT-32 also supports 16-bit
compilers, including Borland 4.x. At least this is what the official web
site states:
"Watt-32 is a library for making networked TCP/IP programs in the
language of C and C++ under DOS and Windows-NT. Both 16-bit real-mode
and 32-bit protected-mode is supported."
"Watt-32 supports these compilers and environments:
GNU C/C++ 2.7 (or later) with djgpp 2.x DOS-extender.
Metaware HighC 3.x with PharLap DOS-extenders.
Borland C/C++ 4.x (or later), small/large/flat (PowerPak) models.
Watcom C/C++ 11.x (or later), small/large/flat (DOS4GW/Pharlap) models.
Microsoft Quick C v6.0 (or later), small/large model (Not fully working).
Digital Mars Compiler 8.34 (or later), small/large/32-bit (FlashTek X32) models.
LADSoft's CC386 2.32 (or later), flat model only (Not fully working).
Native WIN32 versions: MingW 3+, Visual-C 6+, OpenWatcom 1.2+ or PellesC (only
tested with
Win-XP)."
So in theory, it should be possible to compile the TCP/IP utilities that
come with WATT-32 using a 16-bit compiler, like Borland C - which I
assume is the one that is also used to compile Arachne, isn't it?
> CC to arachne4dos@xxxxxxxxxxxx, arachne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (will also forward to ArachneBugs group at Yahoo)
Okay.
Udo
-- The DR-DOS/OpenDOS Enhancement Project - http://www.drdosprojects.de
-- This mail was written by a user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --
