Text 898, 108 rader
Skriven 2007-05-05 22:05:04 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.10)
    Kommentar till text 895 av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38.9)
Ärende: sln_sf  v0.1
====================
Hi Maurice,

 PK> however since around 1998 I 
 PK> also did Echomail via BinkD/2. At least once per month I would have 
 PK> to "massage" things to fix up the FTP errors of some sort, PRIOR to 
 PK> moving echomail to BinkD.

 MK> Which ftpd?  

I have no idea what ftpd was being used as I never ran the server my end. 

 PK> 1997 - today, to Bob Seaborn.

 MK> Yeah.  His irex thingy has a few anomalies but overall 
 MK> isn't too bad considering the DOS-think world he is 
 MK> trapped in.  Heh, heh.  Silly OS/2 people eh?  I almost 
 MK> feel sorry for them.  ;-)

I don't, OS/2 has been my mainstay here since V1.3 was available, and its
served me very well. In that time I have toyed with a few *nix environments at
home but have never been terribly happy with any of them (for a variety of
reasons). I use a variety of *nix environments at work (various Linux, Sun,
HP-UX, etc), but for personal use they dont feel as comfortable to me as an
OS/2 machine.


 PK> Thats why I moved to BinkD/2 for Echomail, it is significantly 
 PK> more reliable and better integrated with Fidonet Echomail 
 PK> PROCESSING environments than FTP is. 

 MK> We might have to see about that.  I can't duplicate the 
 MK> rexx part but I bet a bash script could solve that 
 MK> issue and run circles around your binkd/2.  <BEG>

That I highly doubt, however I certainly don't have any inclination to replace
anything currently in use with Bash.......;-)


 PK> Plus I can do things (such as better error recovery) with Rexx FTP 
 PK> that a standard FTP client can't do.

 MK> Right.  I've seen many poor clients over the years.

As the functionality I have implemented in Rexx is not in any standard form of
FTP I have ever seen, I doubt anyone can complain that poor performance may be
caused by "a poor FTP client"........;-)


 PK> You may note that except for ONE transfer, FTP comes nowhere near the
 PK> performance of BinkD in those stats, but as thats a different server
 PK> on a completely different IP address I have no idea of its loading at
 PK> that time.

 MK> Yes but that is OS/2.  

No its not, its related to THAT specific FTPD that its talking to at the time
the transfer was logged (and both the BinkD and FTP reports were run over the
same dates), as my Rexx FTP Client runs fine to other systems FTPD's, but even
then it struggles to match the performance of BinkD/2.

Another FTP Report from different dates -

 Date     Time     Connection     -><- Filename         Size  mm:ss   cps.
-------- -------- --------------  ---- ------------ --------  ----- -----
20070412 11:12:15 1:140/1         RxTc ABF12I03.TIC     1142   0:01    777
20070412 11:12:19 1:140/1         RxTc AP070410.ZIP    19758   0:02   8666
20070412 11:12:22 1:140/1         RxTc ABF12I0I.TIC     1350   0:01    871
20070412 11:17:13 1:140/1         RxTc DAT6NAV.ZIP  11793361   4:48  40812
20070412 11:17:16 1:140/1         RxTc ABF12I0M.TIC     1143   0:01    742
20070412 11:17:25 1:140/1         RxTc AP070411.ZIP   229317   0:07  31031
20070413 11:12:13 1:140/1         RxTc ACF0KEGA.TIC     1143   0:01    772
20070413 11:12:41 1:140/1         RxTc AP070412.ZIP   904268   0:26  34448
20070414 11:12:14 1:140/1         RxTc ADF19R03.TIC     1334   0:01    889
20070414 11:12:20 1:140/1         RxTc NEWSATLE.ZIP    99297   0:04  23474
20070414 11:12:22 1:140/1         RxTc ADF19R07.TIC     1250   0:01    833
20070414 11:15:01 1:140/1         RxTc DEF3FP.ZIP    6286866   2:36  40213
20070414 11:15:03 1:140/1         RxTc ADF19R0H.TIC     1122   0:01    785
20070414 11:15:08 1:140/1         RxTc I-ARGUS.Z03     19499   0:02   8904

So as you can see the performance can alter quite a bit, however the speed of
transfer is not an issue to me, as much of that is totally outside my control. 
The Rexx FTP API is implemented as an OS/2 .DLL, so a transfer is simply one
call (FtpGet()), there is very little I can do to massage performance. I use
FTP for Filecho's simply because its the functionalty for the CLIENT end that I
can write into my Rexx FTP code that allows me to do things that BinkD simply
cannot do (such as interogate specific BBS Filecho configurations).


 MK> I'll set something up between a Dell 
 MK> server I happen to have at the moment (customizing it for a 
 MK> friend) and my box in the next little while and see if I 
 MK> can replicate the above at least bytewise and I'll post my 
 MK> results.  

Don't bother, because its a pretty pointless exercise as I see it. If my Rexx
FTP code does pretty much EXACTLY what I want it to do, why should I even
consider changing it, if I am not changing platforms?

 MK> Care to make a wager on which wins?

The catch is that your definition of WIN (and I dont mean WINdows here....;-))
is different to mine........;-)

Cheers.............pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)