Andrej Trobentar wrote: > I don't know if this is the right email to send my question to, but I have > tried on a couple of linux mailinglists and noone seems to know the > answer. To my question...
And bug-shellutils because? > I have an VT 510 terminal connected to a linux PC (three wire cable MMJ > <-> DB9). I really hate hearing that you only have three wires and are not using any hardware flow control. > I have set the port to use XON/XOFF communications and tell it > to operate at 115200bps. Trying to use 115.2kbs without hardware flow control! My first reaction is complete dismay. My second suggestion is to try no faster than 4800bps without flow control. That is as fast as my vt100 can handle. Perhaps your vt510 can handle a faster rate. :-) > When I send like 100 lines to the terminal with the echo command I > can see errors on the terminal (the error characters are like > question marks, but turned upside down). The buffer is being overrun with data faster than it can be processed by the terminal. Errors in the data are being created. In your character set those corrupted characters are being turned into other characters. Or perhaps your terminal is displaying the overrun error. Others tend to call that "line noise". > If I connect the terminal with the same cable to a Windows 2000 PC > everything works fine - no errors on the terminal. What could cause > such behavior? How are you sure that you are creating the same test case with those two systems? Windows surely has no way to produce a 100 lines of characters exactly the same as your linux pc. I suspect that it is not able to produce output fast enough to overrun your terminal buffer. I suspect that your linux pc is faster and more likely statistically to do that. > I would apriciate if you could help me or point me to the right address. I strongly recommend hardware flow control. You really, really, want to have more wires in your cable. Trying to deal with the problems of software flow control is very painful and you are unlikely ever to be satisfied with the result. If you do insist upon using software flow control then you should slow down to a slower rate such that your terminal is able to keep up. At some point you will not have any buffer overrun problems. There really is not a good address for your question. I have not paid too much attention lately to the newsgroups but I would guess that the news group comp.os.linux.misc would be a reasonable place to broker such questions if you were wishing to discuss this problem. Beware that the noise ratio in the newsgroups has gotten extremely high. Bob _______________________________________________ Bug-sh-utils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-sh-utils
