On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Thomas Miller wrote:

> Johnny Billquist <bqt@update.uu.se> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Thomas Miller wrote:
> >
> > > Johnny Billquist <bqt@update.uu.se> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You are seeing more than 3 Mb/s, but it looks like your close to
> > > > 4 Mb/s, not 5...
> > >
> > > Just to be blindingly clear could you please post
> > > (perhaps again) how you calculated "close to 4?"
> >
> > Didn't you mention somewhere around 390 KB/s transfer rate with ftp? Or
> > did I dream that number?
>
> I think yesterday I mentioned 320 and 326.  390 would be
> a big deal because 3.9 is almost 4 and 4 is almost 5,
> whereas 3.26 is only a "little over 3."  But I'm beginning
> to rant.  :-)

Looked at the archives, and you reported an aggregated bw of 390 KB/s.
Still, that means you managed to get close to 4 Mbis/s downloaded.

Or am I still misunderstanding something?

> So, you're just dividing by 100, which is the result of
> multiplying by 10 to go from kilobytes to kilobits (taking
> into account packet overhead you use 10 instead of 8), and
> then dividing by 1000 to go from kilobits to megabits?  Do
> I have this straight?

Yes. If you just look at the numbers, and ignore the prefixes (K and M).
Otherwise I'm just multiplying by 10. :-)

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol