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 =)
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?
That's about the nuts and bolts of it.
Thanks for the writeup!
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.
Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)
It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.
I did try Ymodem, and it's about the same speed as Zmodem.
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.
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 =)
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.
And how fast is that? Is possible that the Qodem Zmodem implementation
is just slower than its Kermit implementation?
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.
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.
Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =) It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.
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.
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?
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.
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.
and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't
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 :).
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).
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.
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
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"?
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.
internet anymore. why shouldn't i be able to fetch a movie off a bbs via
To: NightfoxThe 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.
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.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 189:32:50 |
| Calls: | 183 |
| Files: | 5,413 |
| Messages: | 222,737 |