| |
I0OJJ > PACKET 09.05.24 20:30l 48 Lines 1617 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 95YI0OJJ_00G
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Is B2 compression better than B1?
Path: IW8PGT<LU4ECL<I0OJJ
Sent: 240509/1926z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] obcm1.08-6-g5b69
From: I0OJJ @ I0OJJ.ITA.EU (Gustavo)
To: PACKET @ WW
X-Info: Received by SMTP-gateway
> TECH @WW de:WG3K 08.05.24 04:11 1 1251 Bytes
> Is B2 compression better than B1?
> *** Bulletin-ID: 4059_WG3K ***
> *** Received from IZ3LSV ***
> R:240508/0333Z 4059@WG3K.#SMD.MD.USA.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24
>
> Is B2 compression better than B1? By "better" I mean network efficient.
No. Essentially is almost the same as B1; it technically performs
another CRC control on the process.
> While watching messages come and go on my system, I often see a (B)ulletin
> go out to several different systems at the same time. If the message is
> large enough, the B1 compression seems to do better than the B2. B2 also
> seems to send messages individually instead of smooching together up to
> five messages (or the maximum block size) into a single push, thus being
> more network efficient by completely filling the frames being sent.
> A cursory view appears to show that B2's only benefit is handling
> attachments, but I don't have any real data to prove this. Does anyone know?
>
> 73,
> Eric WG3K
The other two main differences of the B2 are:
- supports multiple address(ed) messages;
- supports messages with embedded attachments.
The 'original' B2F protocol was written always
by Jean-Paul F6FBB, but never applied on his
(x)FBB PBBS software.
As per my knowledge, the B2 protocol was first
implemented on Winlink2000 systems and to
various client to work it, i.e. airmail, etc.
Then we can find the B2 on JNOS2 and (x)BPQ
systems.
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab/ir0eq
non multa, sed multum
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
