[email protected] (Tony Harminc) writes: > You've mentioned this a number of times, but I don't think you've > explained what you did to the Pascal code to get a 500x improvement. > Was the original code exceptionally bad, was your new code > exceptionally brilliant, did you take advantage of some knowledge of > the VS Pascal code generator or were your changes applicable to code > in any language...?
only a little of it was vs pascal specific ... most of it was doing fast pathing for the most common case. also the communication group had been doing a lots to try and make tcp/ip perform as badly as possible ... and as a result, there was little or no optimization. The other was they limited the channel attach box to a lan bridge ... so the translation from tcp/ip to LAN packets had to be done in the mainframe. I was able to channel attach a TCP/IP router box ... which eliminated a whole bunch of slow serialized processing in the mainframe code (and the channel attached router box was much higher performance than the communication group channel attached LAN bridge). http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#1044 i've also told the story about later ... the communication group subcontracting tcp/ip support implemented in vtam. the initial implementation had TCP throughput much faster than approx. equivalent LU6.2. The communication group told the subcontractor that everybody knows that a *CORRECT* implementation of TCP is much slower than LU6.2 and they would only be paying for a *CORRECT* implementation. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
