FreeLists / arachne / [arachne] Lsppp versions

["Destiny" <2sharku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!

 Tested 2 version of lsppp.exe ver .9 and 1.01  Always noticed .9 was much
faster so tested today.  Downloaded the following link with same procedure and
cache cleared:
http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2003/2003.10.07.cpi.en.html
Used these parameters in arachne.cfg:
Dialer @lsppp.exe /d:3414663 /n:2 /B:115200 /F:14 /V:60 
/N:199.60.229.130,199.60.229.132 /P:user /U:pass>ppp.log

Results as follows:

ver .9 default /mru as this ver can not set the parameter  38 seconds
ver 1.01 mru:576,576  2:01 minutes
same      " :1000,1000 2 minutes
same      " :1500,1500 2:05 minutes
ver .9 again  38 seconds

Found when using ver 1 or 1.01 performance was siginificantly slower as
indicated above for any online feature.  This was using a 56k modem operating
at 45-47000.  What speeds can others get from this link?  Have never
determined why later versions are so slow for me.  This occurs on several
machines.

Cal

> From: "da Silva, Joe" <Joe.daSilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [arachne] Re: LSPPP versions
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:17:00 +1000

> The later versions (1.0x) of LSPPP might use a few more bytes of
> RAM (I haven't checked closely, they are similar in RAM usage),
> however they fix a number of bugs (such as the LCP bug that was
> introduced in LSPPP 0.75) and have _much_ better error handling,
> so "download stalls" of images on web pages are virtually a "thing
> of the past".

> FYI, main bugs in recent LSPPP versions :
> 0.75-0.76 : LCP is broken, some ISPs tolerate it, others don't.
> 0.8 : Automatic DNS negotiation/detection is broken.
> 0.9x : Seems totally (for me) broken, don't know the exact cause.


Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Web Browser/Suite for DOS and Linux --