>>then i plug my ricochet into my udb port, i get much more than that.
>>at least twice as much more (~25 kilobytes/sec reported from ftp,
>>whatever that works out to), although the modem always reports CONNECT
>>460800 when using usb.
>>
>>steve's ricochet device is a pccard, so i'm not sure what that would
>>be affected by, although i sort of assumed it would have its own uart
>>on the card that would be capable of really high data rates.  steve?
>>what speed does ftp tell you you're getting when you use it?
>
>I don't have enough experience yet to say.  I've only had two 
>opportunities to use it, and only got 40K bps and 80K bps, in very 
>brief tests.

what i usually do to test bandwidth is ask ftp to download a largish
file from somewhere that i know i usually get good thruput.
downloading something from domewhere that i typically get crappy
thruput doesn't tell me much.  issuing the command

   ftp ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/9.1.0/bind-9.1.0.tar.gz

and letting it chug for a while usually leave ftp settling down at
about "25.xx KB/s".

>A Linux-oriented Web page says that the card has a 576 byte buffer 
>(i.e., one packet), which the host will need to pick up more or less 
>all at once.  The card appears to the kernel to be a 16550A.

hmm...okay.

>All I know for sure is that this morning, with a large ring buffer, I 
>didn't get any "ibuf flood" messages; yesterday, with the default 
>buffer, I did.

good news.  :)

>On the other hand, yesterday I got a higher data rate than I did 
>today...

that also happens.

>>i've also heard from several sources that ricochet will be upgrading
>>their network from 128k to 256k sometime in the next year or so.
>>
>I've heard the same thing.

good.  then i'm not just on crack.  again.

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."