Don't get me wrong - I like fast connections, and faster is generally
better. But 105ish Kbytes/sec is better than we had been seeing not that
long ago. We were lucky to hit 50, and frequently saw 25! Perhaps I should
have mentioned that we are going across a WAN, and our 3000 is in another
state... I know that we are currently going thru a (recently doubled) 896k
line at one point, and can only guess what other troubles could be seen.
From our new building, with 100Mbit Ethernet, I do hope to see better
throughput.

I will ask about SP4 on our NT ftp server, but I am pretty sure that we
either are there or are going there. Perhaps I can help with the
disconnects... We had to put our ftps inside a !WHILE loop at first, because
of frequent SOCKERR 64s. Finally, we increased our inbound buffer pool by
how many times more memory it had than the model's default, and no more
SOCKERR 64s. We also got much better throughput.

My original point was simply comparing an ftp put to a smbclient put, albeit
to different NT boxes. I thought this might be of interest to anyone else
wondering which gives better throughput for getting a file from a 3000 to an
NT box.

-----Original Message-----
From: Donna Garverick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 3:11 PM
To: Stigers, Greg [And]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ftp put vs smbclient put results

(i guess you're decrying the speed of the ftp to your nt box...?)  if so...i
ran into a similar problem.  we ftp to an nt every day and were experiencing
horrible transfer times.  at the response center's recommendation, we talked
the owners of the nt box into applying service pack 4.  (according to hp,
there's some kind of known issue with ftp on ntsp3.)  transfer times are
*much*
better now :-)  and if we could just sustain the connection <sigh> the world
would be a happier place.  hth                - d

--
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<