Re: [colorforth] bulk transfer protocol

[Mark Slicker <maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Robert Patten wrote:

> Mark , This is from my notes. I have not made time to impliment.
>
>          A "device" may take a IP address and port number to set up.
> All block I/O is then from or to that device and local memory
> on this device.
>     These words take a block number. A device can be anything
> that can accept or send a block.
>
> "get" block from that device.
>
> "put" block to that device.( actually a request for that device to
>     get the block from this device. Put is repeated until block
>      is sent in response to the get request from device.
>      This allows the device to allocate  block
>      and to request block until received.)

Chuck has "get" and "put", however they are implemented somewhat
differently.

"get" sends a block number to a host, the host replies with the block
number and the block from its archive (an offset of 300 blocks). The reply
from the host is actually the "put" message. The reciever of the "put"
message, will write the incoming block to its archive.

My proposal is a multiple "get". It seems the bit array would allow for a
very simple way to keep track of the blocks that are received properly. An
additional request would simply send the current state of the bit array.

The point of this, might be to increase the efficiency of bulk transfers
over the Internet, and also provide a simpler protocol with a simpler
implementation. I think with this method you still need good stratagies
of when to send data and when to request retransmission.

Mark

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com