Skip to main content

1. The harm

Marking was introduced to suit the sending Host because it permits the text of a message to start on a word boundary, however, it does not suit the receiving Host with a different word length. Moreover,it introduces in the message useless bits. Let us illustrate this by the example of our Sigma 7, a 32 bit machine.

1.1 Inefficiency in Computation​

Suppose we receive a message from an 18 bit machine (figure 1.1) coded in 8 bit ASCII characters which will eventually become standard on the network. In order to translate this message into our EBCDIC internal code, for instance.

0                        17           0                           31
-------------------------- ------------------------------
| leader | | leader |
-------------------------- ------------------------------
| | 0 0 0 1| | 0 0 0 1 | |
-------------------------- ----------- |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| message | | message |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |

Figure 1.1

we first have to shift the whole message. We must detect the firsl 1 following the leader, and from this determine that we must shift the message 4 bits to the left. This takes approximately 12 �sec per double word, which makes 1,5 msec per full regular message. This is not huge, but still it is about one-third of the time it will take to translate the message in internal code.

1.2 Inefficiency in transmission​

More important is the inefficiency resulting from adding unnecessary bits to the message, especially if it turns out that one character messages are used. Figure 1.2 shows the example of a 1 character text sent by the sigma 7, which results in transmitting 112 bits to carry 8 bits of information, thus leading to an efficiency factor of 0.07. Supression of marking would

                            -----------------------------------
Sigma 7 | leader |
-----------------------------------
Message |00000000000000000000000000000001 |
-----------------------------------
| text | 000000000000000000000000 |
-----------------------------------
16 bits of padding | 1000000000000000 |
added by sending IMP --------------------

Figure 1.2

increase this efficiency to 0.10. For a 32 bit text (length of some control commands), it would increase the efficiency form 0.28 to 0.4. For one packet messages, the efficiency would still be increased by 3%.