[Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Index] [Thread Next]
Christopher Fowler cfowler@outpostsentinel.com
Tue, 16 May 2006 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Back in the old days of doing much serial stuff I had a test I would run on printers, terminals, etc to see if flow control was an issue. Below is a sample test. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [cfowler@ze1250 cfowler]$ cat test.pl #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; for(my $x = 1; $x <= $ARGV[0]; $x++) { printf "%04d **********************************************************************\n", $x; } --------------------------------------------------------------------- The key here is that you look at the output. If you see lines missing or something wrong then you know you have a flow control issue. On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 12:29, Chris Riddoch wrote: > Okay, I know it's cheesy to reply to my own posts, but I figure someone > going through the archives for this problem would want to know the answer. > > My first theory was that cygwin was having issues. But then I stumbled > on a project, for other reasons, that's modified PuTTY for use as the > terminal for Cygwin: http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/~medgar/puttycyg/ > > It *seems* that the normal DOS-box terminal that Cygwin usually works > through is more than a little broken. Besides being annoying to resize, > and not really being a proper terminal emulator anyway, *it* seems to > have issues with data rates. > > I ran this patched version of PuTTY, connected to one of my boxes, > triggered a huge spew of data, and looked back through it. No data lost > at all! If any of you run Cygwin, this is positively indispensable. > > Of course, when run on Knoppix, conserver had no issues whatsoever. If > only... but anyway, I learned a lot from everyone's posts about the > topic, and I believe we could still lose data for lack of proper flow > control, but I'm confident I can now describe that as someone else's > problem. Thank you all for your help!