Talk:Flow control (data)

"flow control" here is interpreted only in a computer science sense

It seems like "flow control" here is interpreted only in a computer science sense. There are fluid flow control concepts which you can verify by just googling "flow control". A disambiguation page could be helpful.

That was done at some point. There's a dab page, Flow control, which points to this page, now named Flow control (data), as well as to Flow control (fluid). Guy Harris (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between congestion control and flow control

In my opinion, the flow control prevents congestion on the receiver, while congestion control prevents the congestion of the network.

That seems to be correct. Citing 4th Edition Computer Networks by Tanenbaum: "...let us now look at how connections are managed while they are in use. One of the key issues has come up before: flow control. In some ways the flow control problem in the transport layer is the same as in the data link layer, but in other ways is different. The basic similarity is that in both layers a sliding window or other scheme is needed on each connection to keep a fast transmitter from overrunning a slow receiver." 62.251.15.186 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC) LCV[reply]

'Data sets'

Noting the content (with comments now shown) In the old mainframe days, modems were called "data sets"^{[citation needed]}^{[citation needed]} (!-- In 20 years in the industry have never heard a modem referred to as a "data set", it is an I/O device, a "Data Set" is a collection of information, a file in PC parlance. --), hence the survival of the term.^{[citation needed]}(!--Which "term" exactly is referred by "the term"? So weak statement! :( --) I've now removed this, on two grounds. Firstly the cite request is long outstanding with nil response (though maybe this action might create some) and secondly I joined the industry in the mid-70s and am not aware of the term being in use for this specifically. That isn't to say that I'm all-knowing, just that it makes two of us. Modems were pretty rare in mainframe days too though I did use them as I worked for a couple of manufacturers. Anyway, deleted (for the moment if not permanently). --84.45.170.210 (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm joining this discussion late, but the RS-232 control lead label "Data Set Ready" is all the citation needed, IMHO. It is the signal from the 'Data Set' (modem / DCE) to the 'Data Terminal' (computer / DTE) that the modem channel is ready to send data. Although the article seems fine as-is, readers may wonder why DSR has this name.

"Comparison" section vagueness and expansion of article

It's a shame this article is in such a sorry state. The comparison section stands out for its vagueness, and may as well be deleted.

Which reliable sources are there on this topic of data flow control? I can see there are gaping holes to fill. Expanding this can be a good summer project, indeed. Maybe showing some protocols' workings, and a more rigorous explanation of the subject? --Jason B. (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect description of congestion control

The following phrase is misleading: "Flow control should be distinguished from congestion control, which is used for controlling the flow of data when congestion has actually occurred." There are a number of congestion control mechanisms, that control the flow of data to avoid congestion, like for example the congestion control in TCP Vegas. 141.20.33.92 (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak discussion of CTS/RTS flow control

I see no mention made of the scenario in which two DTEs are in communication using CTS/RTS flow control. This is nowadays likely the most commonly-implemented form of hardware flow control on TIA-232 links since the general decline in the use of modems, which are DCEs.

216.152.18.132 (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]