[arachne] Re: Lsppp versions

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!

Since Freelists garbled the message, let me work as a translator...
[but for this time only ;-)]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:57:53 +1000, da Silva, Joe wrote:

> Well, this had me puzzled at first ... however, I think the problem
> is the /F:14 parameter. Please delete this (or use the safer /F:1
> value). The reason 0.9 works OK? Well, IIRC, the "/F" parameter
> is broken in this version, so you effectively get "/F:1" regardless.
>
> So, try what I have suggested, you should find V1.01 works just
> as fast as 0.9 (I can't verify this, because 0.9 doesn't work *at*
> *all* for me;-).
>
> Joe.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Destiny [SMTP:2sharku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:51 AM
> > To:   arachne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject:      [arachne] Lsppp versions
> >
> > 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.h
> > tml
> > 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 --
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email (including any attachment) is confidential. If you are not the 
> intended recipient,
> you must not disclose or use this email or the information contained herein 
> for any purpose.
> If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise us by 
> reply and delete this email.
> This email may not be altered, forwarded or re-issued without our consent. 
> AMPY Email Metering is
> not responsible for any changes made to this email or the effect of any 
> changes on the email?s meaning.
> It is the responsibility of the recipient to scan this email for viruses and 
> faults prior to processing.
> AMPY Email Metering shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused by this 
> email from transmission,
> viruses, faults or the use of data accompanying this message. AMPY Email 
> Metering reserves all its
> rights, including copyright,in this email.


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

Other related posts: