RB>> Yes I allways got 117% efficiency back then.



RB>> You don't see that these days.

RB>> I have seen 116% at 26400, but I would say that was due to a 

RB>> speed shift up. One day I would like to see 117% efficiency 

RB>> at 33600.



 DD> . . .[chomp]. . .



 DD> The following are (some of) my mail connects this week to marwick.



 DD> # 09 Dec 13:30:39 BINK Connect 33600/Arq/V34/Lapm/V42Bis

 DD> + 09 Dec 13:32:59 BINK CPS: 3910 (520058 bytes)  Efficiency: 116%

 DD> + 09 Dec 13:33:37 BINK CPS: 3872 (147173 bytes)  Efficiency: 115%



Exactly, Notice at 33600 you never get more than 116% (cps in the 3900's)

but you do at 31200



 DD> # 11 Dec 01:35:51 BINK Connect 31200/Arq/V34/Lapm/V42Bis

 DD> + 11 Dec 01:38:20 BINK CPS: 3886 (559640 bytes)  Efficiency: 124%

 DD> + 11 Dec 01:38:43 BINK CPS: 3907 (85962 bytes)  Efficiency: 125%



...[CHOMP] did some of your [CHOMPING] myself...can't have all your own way



 DD> # 14 Dec 13:30:44 BINK Connect 33600/Arq/V34/Lapm/V42Bis

 DD> + 14 Dec 13:32:37 BINK CPS: 3886 (404218 bytes)  Efficiency: 115%



 DD> Obviously, most of these shifted up a speed.



What I'm getting at is, that this lack of 117% at 33600 is either due to

the lack of needed bandwidth above 3000 as Arthur was explaining OR

a failing of the compression protocol used.



Thanks for the "TYPICAL" examples above, they don't get any better

(show-off)



Russell



--- Terminate 4.00/Pro