• kermit protocol in syncterm

    From Christian Sacks@VERT to All on Monday, August 14, 2023 11:47:34
    Hey y'all,

    Just wanted to post it here as don't know where else would be better, I managed to get the kermit protocol running in Mystic (I know this isn't a mystic channel) and really would love it if syncterm could handle the kermit protocol.

    Is there any way in it's current form there's an ability to use like an external protocol with syncterm? or if not, what are the chances kermit could get added to a future release of syncterm?

    After using it for a little while with qodem, I realise that the transfer speeds in kermit are a lot, and I mean a LOT faster than zmodem for example, and think we could all benefit from having that as an option on BBSes that support kermit.

    Just my thoughts for the day, lemme know if you think it's a good idea or not, and if there's a way for me to use kermit currently with syncterm.

    Thanks for listening =)

    ... DOS=HIGH? I knew it was on something...

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (2:250/5)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Digital Man@VERT to Christian Sacks on Monday, August 14, 2023 11:41:25
    Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Christian Sacks to All on Mon Aug 14 2023 11:47 am

    Hey y'all,

    Just wanted to post it here as don't know where else would be better, I managed to get the kermit protocol running in Mystic (I know this isn't a mystic channel) and really would love it if syncterm could handle the kermit protocol.

    Is there any way in it's current form there's an ability to use like an external protocol with syncterm? or if not, what are the chances kermit could get added to a future release of syncterm?

    After using it for a little while with qodem, I realise that the transfer speeds in kermit are a lot, and I mean a LOT faster than zmodem for example, and think we could all benefit from having that as an option on BBSes that support kermit.

    Just my thoughts for the day, lemme know if you think it's a good idea or not, and if there's a way for me to use kermit currently with syncterm.

    Thanks for listening =)

    The place to make SyncTERM feature requests is here: https://sourceforge.net/p/syncterm/feature-requests/

    Most likely, any *significant* performance differences you're observing between Kermit and ZMODEM would be in the protocol driver/implementation (e.g. in Qodem) and not the protocol itself.

    The ZMODEM protocol also has a lot of options that can impact through-put (e.g. windowing or not, window size, encoding/escaping of characters).

    If you want the lowest overhead protocol, use YMODEM-G. It doesn't have all the same features of ZMODEM (or Kermit), but has the lowest amount of protocol overhead of all of them (besides plain TCP, e.g. FTP).
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Sling Blade quote #24:
    Karl: Kaiser blade. I hit my mother upside the head with it. Mmm... Killed her. Norco, CA WX: 82.0F, 60.0% humidity, 3 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

    ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Christian Sacks on Monday, August 14, 2023 16:21:45
    Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Christian Sacks to All on Mon Aug 14 2023 11:47 am

    managed to get the kermit protocol running in Mystic (I know this isn't a mystic channel) and really would love it if syncterm could handle the kermit protocol.

    Is there any way in it's current form there's an ability to use like an external protocol with syncterm? or if not, what are the chances kermit could get added to a future release of syncterm?

    After using it for a little while with qodem, I realise that the transfer


    speaking of qodem, using it on your bbs gives it an issue where the cursor is at the wrong area on your login matrix.
    ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Ryan Fantus@VERT to Christian Sacks on Thursday, August 17, 2023 05:04:21
    Just wanted to post it here as don't know where else would be better, I managed to get the kermit protocol running in Mystic (I know this isn't
    a mystic channel) and really would love it if syncterm could handle the kermit protocol.

    Any chance you can share how you got it working? And is it in Windows or linux?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Christian Sacks@VERT to Ryan Fantus on Thursday, August 17, 2023 14:43:50
    On 17 Aug 2023, Ryan Fantus said the following...

    Any chance you can share how you got it working? And is it in Windows or linux?

    It was in Linux, and I posted how to do this in the MYSTIC message base, but here's a TLDR;

    Install gkermit from the usual repo, for ubuntu/debian `sudo apt install gkermit

    Create a wrapper script called /mystic/kermit_batch.sh, the contents of which should be;

    #!/usr/bin/env bash
    FILELIST="$1"
    FILES=$(cat $FILELIST|tr '\n' ' ')
    if [[ "$(basename $FILELIST)" == "file.lst" ]]; then
    for FILE in $FILES; do
    echo "Sending file: $FILE"
    /usr/bin/gkermit -d /tmp/kermit-send.log -Xis $FILE
    done
    else
    echo "Sending file: $FILELIST"
    /usr/bin/gkermit -d /tmp/kermit-send.log -Xis $FILELIST
    fi
    rm $FILELIST

    Finally in the Mystic configuration ediror, goto "Editors -> Protocol Editor" Create a new protocol called "Kermit" or whatever you want...

    Protocol Editor: Kermit ͻ

    Active Yes
    OS All
    Batch Yes
    Hot Key K
    Description Kermit
    Send Command /mystic/kermit_batch.sh %3
    Recv Command /usr/bin/gkermit -d /tmp/kermit-recv.log -Xir
    ͼ

    That's about the nuts and bolts of it.

    Hope it helps =)

    ... There are two types of people; those who finish what they start and

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (2:250/5)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Ryan Fantus@VERT to Christian Sacks on Thursday, August 17, 2023 09:38:10
    That's about the nuts and bolts of it.

    Thanks for the writeup!

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Christian Sacks@VERT to Ryan Fantus on Thursday, August 17, 2023 19:17:02
    On 17 Aug 2023, Ryan Fantus said the following...

    Thanks for the writeup!

    You're very welcome, and I hope that it will help some people.
    Always happy to try and help where I can.

    ... There will be a rain dance Friday night, weather permitting!

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (2:250/5)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Christian Sacks on Thursday, August 17, 2023 18:09:29
    Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Christian Sacks to Ryan Fantus on Thu Aug 17 2023 02:43 pm

    On 17 Aug 2023, Ryan Fantus said the following...

    Any chance you can share how you got it working? And is it in Windows or linux?

    It was in Linux, and I posted how to do this in the MYSTIC message base, but here's a TLDR;

    Install gkermit from the usual repo, for ubuntu/debian `sudo apt install gkermit

    Create a wrapper script called /mystic/kermit_batch.sh, the contents of

    I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

    did you try ymodem G ilke dm suggested? you might be happier with it.
    ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Christian Sacks@VERT to MRO on Friday, August 18, 2023 01:38:24
    On 17 Aug 2023, MRO said the following...

    I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

    Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)
    It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

    did you try ymodem G ilke dm suggested? you might be happier with it.

    I did try Ymodem, and it's about the same speed as Zmodem.

    ... Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (2:250/5)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Christian Sacks on Thursday, August 17, 2023 22:33:43
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Christian Sacks to MRO on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:38 am


    Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)
    It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.


    well that's a bit older and zmodem kind of won the races on protocols in the bbs scene back in the day.


    I did try Ymodem, and it's about the same speed as Zmodem.


    ymodem or ymodem-g? just go with ymodem-g.
    also i recommend just making a script to make your files available on the web temporarily. make a fake protocol that has the user batch download it, then copy it on the web and give them the temporarly url. i did that before and
    it was pretty easy.

    you could also play around with ntp, i used that back in the day. https://github.com/M-griffin/NTP
    ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Digital Man@VERT to Christian Sacks on Thursday, August 17, 2023 23:01:53
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Christian Sacks to MRO on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:38 am

    On 17 Aug 2023, MRO said the following...

    I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

    Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)

    And how fast is that? Is possible that the Qodem Zmodem implementation is just slower than its Kermit implementation?

    It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

    did you try ymodem G ilke dm suggested? you might be happier with it.

    I did try Ymodem, and it's about the same speed as Zmodem.

    The suggestion was to try Ymodem-G. Ymodem should normally be much slower than Zmodem over any kind of decent transport due to its ack/nak nature.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Sling Blade quote #15:
    Doyle Hargraves: What'cha doin' with that lawn mower blade Karl?
    Norco, CA WX: 70.5F, 73.0% humidity, 0 mph NW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

    ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Christian Sacks@VERT to Digital Man on Friday, August 18, 2023 10:42:42
    On 17 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    And how fast is that? Is possible that the Qodem Zmodem implementation
    is just slower than its Kermit implementation?

    Using Zmodem I'm getting about 850,000 cps or about 106KB/s (if my conversion is correct) locally using SyncTERM
    Using Kermit I'm getting about 25,900,000 cps or about 3237KB/s (or 3.237MB/s) locally using qodem

    Both were downloading the same 45MB file from my BBS.

    The suggestion was to try Ymodem-G. Ymodem should normally be much
    slower than Zmodem over any kind of decent transport due to its ack/nak nature.

    Ymodem-G either is broken in mystic or SyncTERM and Mystic don't play well as it just locks up the terminal and doesn't do
    anything until I force hang up. Ymodem (non -G) is ~same as Zmodem, maybe a little slower.

    I just tried Regular Ymodem again and now that seems to be borking up too... hmm, might need to restart mystic maybe.

    ... Some people have no idea what they're doing, and are really good at it!

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (2:250/5)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Ryan Fantus@VERT to Christian Sacks on Friday, August 18, 2023 02:39:51
    I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

    Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)

    I wonder if the inbuilt error correction in most file transfer protocols is more of a bug these days than a feature...tcp/ip already does all of this, so more error correction is just adding latency. If kermit has weak error correction, maybe that's why it's so fast over telnet.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Ryan Fantus@VERT to MRO on Friday, August 18, 2023 02:40:47
    also i recommend just making a script to make your files available on
    the web temporarily. make a fake protocol that has the user batch
    download it, then copy it on the web and give them the temporarly url.

    Yeah I dig this idea, for downloads it feels like the cleanest solution. Uploads are a bit more of a challenge but not insurmountable by any means.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From The Lizard Master@VERT/NITEEYES to MRO on Friday, August 18, 2023 08:31:01
    Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: MRO to Christian Sacks on Thu Aug 17 2023 06:09 pm

    I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

    did you try ymodem G ilke dm suggested? you might be happier with it.

    Same experience here, although it might be easier these days to not worry as much about error correction with the speeds we have now?

    ---TLM

    ---
    Synchronet Nite Eyes BBS - To make people happy about my tagline everywhere...
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Christian Sacks on Friday, August 18, 2023 10:19:31
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Christian Sacks to MRO on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:38 am

    Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =) It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

    Zmdoem became a de-facto standard file transfer protocol on BBSes by the 90s due to its error handling, speed, & such. I always thought Kermit was an older protocol (one of the first file transfer protocols developed). I did a search for Kermit the other day though and read something that Kermit has been udpated to keep up with current standards in file transfer protocols, and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't know that.

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Digital Man@VERT to Christian Sacks on Friday, August 18, 2023 10:31:50
    Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Christian Sacks to Digital Man on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:42 am

    On 17 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    And how fast is that? Is possible that the Qodem Zmodem implementation is just slower than its Kermit implementation?

    Using Zmodem I'm getting about 850,000 cps or about 106KB/s (if my conversion is correct) locally using SyncTERM
    Using Kermit I'm getting about 25,900,000 cps or about 3237KB/s (or 3.237MB/s) locally using qodem

    Both were downloading the same 45MB file from my BBS.

    The suggestion was to try Ymodem-G. Ymodem should normally be much slower than Zmodem over any kind of decent transport due to its ack/nak nature.

    Ymodem-G either is broken in mystic or SyncTERM and Mystic don't play well as it just locks up the terminal and doesn't do
    anything until I force hang up. Ymodem (non -G) is ~same as Zmodem, maybe a little slower.

    I just tried Regular Ymodem again and now that seems to be borking up too... hmm, might need to restart mystic maybe.

    Maybe test with a different BBS software or different protocol driver on the BBS side?

    Ymodem-G has almost 0 overhead, so (without compression or other cheats), it's really not possible for Kermit (the protocol) to be faster than Ymodem-G. And Zmodem is only a little slower than Ymodem-G.

    So any major speed difference you're seeing (and reporting here) are due to the *implementation* of the protocol on either the sending or receiving side, and not the protocol itself.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #24:
    DOVE = Domain/Vertrauen
    Norco, CA WX: 78.8F, 56.0% humidity, 4 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

    ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to The Lizard Master on Friday, August 18, 2023 16:07:59
    Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: The Lizard Master to MRO on Fri Aug 18 2023 08:31 am

    Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: MRO to Christian Sacks on Thu Aug 17 2023 06:09 pm

    I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

    did you try ymodem G ilke dm suggested? you might be happier with it.

    Same experience here, although it might be easier these days to not worry as much about error correction with the speeds we have now?

    yeah but if you get bad packets how is that going to do you any good.
    ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Nightfox on Friday, August 18, 2023 16:10:01
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am

    search for Kermit the other day though and read something that Kermit has been udpated to keep up with current standards in file transfer protocols, and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't know that.

    yup i tried it yesterday. i couldnt get it to do cp437 but i only spent a min with it.
    ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From fusion@VERT/CFBBS to Digital Man on Friday, August 18, 2023 17:19:00
    On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    Ymodem-G has almost 0 overhead, so (without compression or other
    cheats), it's really not possible for Kermit (the protocol) to be faster than Ymodem-G. And Zmodem is only a little slower than Ymodem-G.

    i can't replicate this. i get 1.12MB/s sexyz to sexyz (syncterm) with zmodem and 0.86MB/s with ymodem-g sexyz to sexyz. certainly an improvement over mystic's but something is a bottleneck.

    this is on an i7-3520M .. no spring chicken for sure. both transfers used 38-50% cpu during the transfer. (for comparison a 65MB/s transfer to the same machine uses 8%)

    i can totally see gkermit outperforming ymodem-g.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Phigan@VERT/TACOPRON to Nightfox on Friday, August 18, 2023 13:59:49
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am

    and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't

    Kermit was ported to the 6502 computers as Kermit65... It did software 80 columns on the Atari 8bit and I could connect to the community college systems to use Gopher which connected me to FTP sites like funet.fi where I could leech demos! The Gopher FTP gateway would pull the file from the FTP site and then send it to me with Kermit :).

    ---
    Synchronet TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Phigan on Friday, August 18, 2023 16:59:27
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Phigan to Nightfox on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:59 pm

    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am

    and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't

    Kermit was ported to the 6502 computers as Kermit65... It did software 80 columns on the Atari 8bit and I could connect to the community college systems to use Gopher which connected me to FTP sites like funet.fi where I could leech demos! The Gopher FTP gateway would pull the file from the FTP site and then send it to me with Kermit :).

    yeah i did that on metropolous bbs in 97.
    lots of services had that feature.
    ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Digital Man@VERT to fusion on Friday, August 18, 2023 16:42:36
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: fusion to Digital Man on Fri Aug 18 2023 05:19 pm

    On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    Ymodem-G has almost 0 overhead, so (without compression or other cheats), it's really not possible for Kermit (the protocol) to be faster than Ymodem-G. And Zmodem is only a little slower than Ymodem-G.

    i can't replicate this. i get 1.12MB/s sexyz to sexyz (syncterm) with zmodem and 0.86MB/s with ymodem-g sexyz to sexyz. certainly an improvement over mystic's but something is a bottleneck.

    this is on an i7-3520M .. no spring chicken for sure. both transfers used 38-50% cpu during the transfer. (for comparison a 65MB/s transfer to the same machine uses 8%)

    i can totally see gkermit outperforming ymodem-g.

    YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Rush quote #30:
    You can do a lot in a lifetime if you don't burn out too fast
    Norco, CA WX: 88.7F, 33.0% humidity, 10 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

    ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From fusion@VERT/CFBBS to Digital Man on Friday, August 18, 2023 20:23:00
    On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).

    sorry i misspoke. i can see gkermit (and by extension, kermit. just to spell it out) outperforming sexyz's ymodem-g.

    you asserted ymodem-g shouldn't have any overhead and should be as fast or faster than kermit. is that in theory? because i tested ymodem-g with sexyz
    and it performs extremely poorly with incredible overhead. (again, sexyz->syncterm)

    if i compare to the reference implementation of rz/sz what am i trying to prove? that sexyz's ymodem-g (or zmodem) works better with the reference implementation than with itself? or am i proving both perform poorly compared to kermit?

    you mentioned zmodem shouldn't be far /behind/, yet it performs better than ymodem-g with sexyz.

    people are easily using it correctly and getting poor results where they shouldn't be. so they try kermit and it blows sexyz out of the water. after which you chime in and say "use ymodem-g it should be even better!" .. well i'm saying that doesn't pan out in real life.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Digital Man@VERT to fusion on Friday, August 18, 2023 19:02:13
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: fusion to Digital Man on Fri Aug 18 2023 08:23 pm

    On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).

    sorry i misspoke. i can see gkermit (and by extension, kermit. just to spell it out) outperforming sexyz's ymodem-g.

    Okay. <shrug>

    you asserted ymodem-g shouldn't have any overhead and should be as fast or faster than kermit. is that in theory?

    Correct, I'm talking about the protocol itself. Unless you're using a compression feature with Kermit (are you?), it's really impossible for the Kermit *protocol* to outperfrom Ymodem-G protocol over the same TCP/IP link - removing any implementation details. Ymodem-G simply has near zero over head over TCP/IP and no wait for acknowlegement of any subpacket data, so the only want to get *faster* is to use a protocol with literally zero data overhead (e.g. FTP) or to use some kind of data compression.

    because i tested ymodem-g with sexyz
    and it performs extremely poorly with incredible overhead. (again, sexyz->syncterm)

    "Overhead" refers to the amount of extra data that is sent in addition to the actual payload (file) data. It's not really relevant in that sentence. The overhead is a function of the protocol, not the impplementation. Anyway, okay, so you found gkermit outperms sexyz in your particular test environment. Cool.

    if i compare to the reference implementation of rz/sz what am i trying to prove?

    Your initial messages said you were comparing Kermit to Zmodem. If that's what you really want to do, use the reference implementation of Zmodem by Chuck Forsberg for your tests.

    that sexyz's ymodem-g (or zmodem) works better with the reference implementation than with itself? or am i proving both perform poorly compared to kermit?

    you mentioned zmodem shouldn't be far /behind/, yet it performs better than ymodem-g with sexyz.

    Faster than Ymodem-G? Not under my tests. And there's no technical reason why it should.

    people are easily using it correctly and getting poor results where they shouldn't be. so they try kermit and it blows sexyz out of the water. after which you chime in and say "use ymodem-g it should be even better!" .. well i'm saying that doesn't pan out in real life.

    Your "real life" test is over a localhost link or a local network? Why on earth would you be using a serial/modem file transfer protocol over a local network (Ethernet, WiFi?) and call that "real life"?
    --
    digital man (rob)

    Sling Blade quote #2:
    Karl (re: killing Doyle): I hit him two good whacks in the head with it.
    Norco, CA WX: 83.6F, 41.0% humidity, 11 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

    ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From fusion@VERT/CFBBS to Digital Man on Saturday, August 19, 2023 02:28:00
    On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    Correct, I'm talking about the protocol itself. Unless you're using a compression feature with Kermit (are you?), it's really impossible for
    the Kermit *protocol* to outperfrom Ymodem-G protocol over the same

    no compression. i poked around on another machine for more testing.. built sexyz from http://synchro.net/Synchronet/sbbs_src.tgz and used it on my linux 'router' (i5-3550) to transfer a 700meg movie to my main machine with syncterm and then with ZOC via kermit and it turned out maybe closer to what you'd expect:

    sexyz zmodem: ~6+MB/s (~95% cpu)
    sexyz ymodem-g: <4.5MB/s (~95% cpu)
    gkermit kermit: ~3.7MB/s ( 11% cpu)

    so that's a wash. zmodem still won though, so that's two of my machines that behaved that way.

    this though:

    lrzsz zmodem: ~55MB/s to ZOC and ~36MB/s to syncterm. (50% cpu)

    is crazy.. syncterm did manage to receive from lrzsz at ~66MB/s with ymodem-g, but i had no successful transfers with it.

    so yeah, ymodem-g is better, but which machines are you getting this performance from using sexyz? does anyone else? and what's it doing with all those cpu cycles?

    Your "real life" test is over a localhost link or a local network? Why
    on earth would you be using a serial/modem file transfer protocol over a local network (Ethernet, WiFi?) and call that "real life"?

    there isn't a significant difference between over the local network and the internet anymore. why shouldn't i be able to fetch a movie off a bbs via zmodem @ 55MB/s? many people with VPSes or that have fiber at home have that capability.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi
  • From Digital Man@VERT to fusion on Saturday, August 19, 2023 00:05:35
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: fusion to Digital Man on Sat Aug 19 2023 02:28 am

    On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

    Correct, I'm talking about the protocol itself. Unless you're using a compression feature with Kermit (are you?), it's really impossible for the Kermit *protocol* to outperfrom Ymodem-G protocol over the same

    no compression. i poked around on another machine for more testing.. built sexyz from http://synchro.net/Synchronet/sbbs_src.tgz and used it on my linux 'router' (i5-3550) to transfer a 700meg movie to my main machine with syncterm and then with ZOC via kermit and it turned out maybe closer to what you'd expect:

    sexyz zmodem: ~6+MB/s (~95% cpu)
    sexyz ymodem-g: <4.5MB/s (~95% cpu)
    gkermit kermit: ~3.7MB/s ( 11% cpu)

    so that's a wash. zmodem still won though, so that's two of my machines that behaved that way.

    You only listed one side of the transfer in that table. There are at least 3 variables here:
    - the sending program
    - the receiving program
    - the protocol used (and many of the protocols have options that different protocol drivers/implementations may make use of or allow the user/sysop to tweak)

    Changing anything about those 3 variables (versions, options, etc.) will likely give you different numbers.

    I'm guessing from the paragraph before the table that the sexyz transfers were to SyncTERM and the gkermit transfer was to ZOC. Did you try measuring what through-put you might get via ZMODEM or YMODEM-G when the receiving program is ZOC? Or any of another assortment of terminal programs that support X/Y/ZMODEM?
    SexyZ and SyncTERM actually use the same x/y/zmodem code, so I'd expect reversing the sender or receiver role between those 2 programs wouldn't likely have much effect. Now, it's possible that the BBS program (Mystic?) is passing a socket descriptor to sexyz that it then has to read and retransmit to the connected-client socket (that's how Synchronet does it anyway), and the efficiency of that passthrough socket implementation can have a big impact on the through-put and CPU utilization on the BBS side.

    this though:

    lrzsz zmodem: ~55MB/s to ZOC and ~36MB/s to syncterm. (50% cpu)

    is crazy.. syncterm did manage to receive from lrzsz at ~66MB/s with ymodem-g, but i had no successful transfers with it.

    Which version of SyncTERM were you using? If it was built from a recent download of sbbs_src.tgz, then I certainly would expect YMODEM-G transfers to work, but maybe the sending version of lrzsz doesn't support the 'G' variant of YMODEM?

    so yeah, ymodem-g is better, but which machines are you getting this performance from using sexyz?

    Me? I don't really make any peformance claims.

    does anyone else? and what's it doing with all those cpu cycles?

    It's trying to keep the TCP socket transmit buffer full but likely not quite as efficiently as lszrz does (which is a bit baffling since lszrz uses stdio and not socket I/O). You could try using sexyz in stdio mode (if Mystic supports that) and see what impact that has.

    Your "real life" test is over a localhost link or a local network? Why on earth would you be using a serial/modem file transfer protocol over a local network (Ethernet, WiFi?) and call that "real life"?

    there isn't a significant difference between over the local network and the internet anymore.

    I suppose that depends on both factor. While Gigabit Ethernet and WiFi are pretty prevalant (and multi-gig Ethernet making in-roads), Gigabit Internet access to the home is still only available to the vast minority of users.

    why shouldn't i be able to fetch a movie off a bbs via
    zmodem @ 55MB/s? many people with VPSes or that have fiber at home have that capability.

    You should. But I don't think Kermit is the magic bullet to providing the optimal through-put. If anything, that protocol would be FTP or (to a bit lesser degree) HTTP, but I do agree: sexyz and SyncTERM could probably do for some optimizations and possibly more robustness with X/Y/ZMODEM file transfers still. And there are a lot of options for ZMODEM operation too (at least in SexyZ), you might want to play with those and see what you find.
    --
    digital man (rob)

    This Is Spinal Tap quote #45:
    I don't really think the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end Norco, CA WX: 68.0F, 75.0% humidity, 0 mph WNW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

    ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Phigan@VERT/TACOPRON to fusion on Saturday, August 19, 2023 06:01:25
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: fusion to Digital Man on Sat Aug 19 2023 02:28 am

    internet anymore. why shouldn't i be able to fetch a movie off a bbs via

    While that's a fair question, I pose to you a different one... Why are you fetching entire movie files rather than pointing a media player (Kodi or VLC or whatever) at them and streaming them? :D

    Soz, off-topic.

    ---
    Synchronet TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io
  • From David Goodwin@VERT to alt.bbs.synchronet on Wednesday, September 13, 2023 14:04:39
    From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

    On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:18:14AM UTC+12, MRO wrote:
    To: Nightfox
    Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
    By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am
    search for Kermit the other day though and read something that Kermit has been udpated to keep up with current standards in file transfer protocols, and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't know that.
    yup i tried it yesterday. i couldnt get it to do cp437 but i only spent a min with it.
    The command you want is: "set term remote cp437" or, in the version of C-Kermit that doesn't run in the windows console, the rightmost drop-down on the toolbar is where you can pick the charset to use.
    For connecting to a BBS you'd probably want to switch the terminal emulator from linux (the default) to ansi-bbs anyway. When you do that, C-Kermit for Windows
    will automatically switch the remote character set to cp437. You can either use the
    left-most drop-down on the toolbar or do a "set term type ansi-bbs".
    (I'm the maintainer of the Windows version of C-Kermit and when I need to test it on vintage windows I tend to point it at a synchronet BBS though the fonts on vintage windows don't do nearly as good a job as on modern windows - screenshots here: https://www.kermitproject.org/ckwscreenshots/ )
    --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net