I've originally posted this to firstloox (http://www.firstloox.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2562
). Because the subject can be of much brodader/generic interest (WZC, the vast performance difference between various FTP clients etc.), I post it here too.
Please note that I've done all the benchmarks on my Fujitsu-Siemens Pocket Loox 720. The figures are likely to be different on other machines; still, the general conclusions may be the same.
Iíve run some new tests under different conditions to measure:
1, the transfer speed of all the major Pocket PC FTP clients (Resco Explorer 5+ís FTP plug-in (http://www.resco-net.com/explorer.asp
), CedeFTP 2.5.3 (http://www.noisette-software.com/pro...ketpc/CedeFTP/
) and vxFtp (http://www.cam.com/vxftp.html
)) to the main memory, to flash cards and to a USB hosted hard disk.
This question is of extreme importance when you have a very fast (e.g., academic or corporate, not just a slow home DSL/cable) connection and want to transfer files of some 10 Mbytes. For example, youíre downloading mp3ís/DivXís from your online repository to watch/show your friends ďon the fieldĒ, where the fastest download speed is of extreme importance because your friends are eagerly waiting for the download to finish.
As it turned out, vxFtp is by far the fastest client when transferring to the main memory. (See the importance of the size of the main memory? iPAQ hx4700 users, anyone? :E ) Itís at least 2 times faster than both Resco and CedeFTP.
When it comes to download straight to a flash card or the USB host, CedeFTP becomes the fastest of all. However, vxFtp isnít very slow in this respect either Ė itís ďonlyĒ 2 times slower when writing straight to SD (while, for example, Resco is an order of magnitude slower).
Resco Explorerís FTP plug-in is a total loser in both downloading to main memory and, especially, to storage cards.
2, the effect of weak Wi-Fi signal on the Wi-Fi speed.
As it turns out, it has little effect because itís not Wi-Fiís actual speed that is the bottleneck on a PPC, unlike with much more powerful desktop/notebook computers. As can be seen from the results, the maximal throughput doesnít really descend even under harsh conditions. Of course, connection _stability_ is a totally different question.
3, the effect of enabling/disabling Wireless Zero Configuration (WZC). As WM2003(SE)ís WZC is continuously trying to find other APís even when bound to a specific peer, you canít achieve the same speed with WZC enabled than with WZC disabled.
As it turns out, when you enable WZC, the performance penalty is some 8% at around 300 kbyte/s (it was the only case that Iíve checked Ė although, several times just to be sure. The performance penalty may be smaller at slower speeds Ė e.g., when the Access Point is sharing a slow connection). Itís not that much Ė still, the results are worth considering; WZC is a real pain in the neck anyway, not just because of its negative effect on the transfer speed.
Comments are welcome!
Weak (about -85 dBm), encrypted (128 bit WEP) signal:
to main memory: 285 kbyte/s
to Ridata 40* CF: 71 kbyte/s
to SanDisk 256M SD: 50 kbyte/s
to main memory: 136 kbyte/s
to Ridata 40* CF: 14 kbyte/s
to SanDisk 256M SD: 8 kbyte/s
to main memory: 150 kbyte/s
to Ridata 40* CF: 90 kbyte/s
Average (about -63 dBm), encrypted (128 bit WEP) signal:
to main memory: 154 kbyte/s
to SanDisk 256M SD: 101 kbyte/s
to USB hosted MamboX P-353: 72.2 kbyte/s
to main memory, with WZC disabled: 310 kbyte/s
to main memory, with WZC enabled: 287 kbyte/s
to SanDisk 256M SD: 52 kbyte/s
to USB hosted MamboX P-353: 60.5 kbyte/s