Stefanie Wiemann wrote:
> I got one of the corrupt tifs and the original and compared them.
> There are 10 bytes which differ:
> 4 bytes starting at offset 152044
> expected: 5F 6D DB B1
> got: BB FF 57 0B
> 4 bytes starting at offset 268020
> expected: 08 39 43 91
> got: A2 F9 1D 17
> and another 2 bytes starting at offset 305044
> expected: 6B F5
> got: 08 8F
>
> Unfortunately I have only this one, no others to compare.
>
> I would agree to what you say about "magic" or "ful" devices.
>
> But ... some more facts first:
> The line is a 2MBit line which is downgraded to 256kBit.
> Just for testing they tried it with the full bandwidth of 2MBit ... and
> it worked (and was really fast).
> If they try it with the downgraded line it is slower ... and fails
> (always).

This is what was meant by a 'magic' device. How is the line 'downgraded' to 256
Kbps? This is likely the cause of the corruption. Perhaps there is no error
detection on this 256 K link?

--
Phil Frisbie, Jr.
Hawk Software
http://www.hawksoft.com