Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!acorn!andy
From: andy@acorn.co.uk (Andy Ingle)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: MNP 5 vs. uucp 'g' (vs. Telebits)
Summary: 'g' with spoofing is faster than 'f'
Message-ID: <833@acorn.co.uk>
Date: 8 Sep 89 12:58:22 GMT
References: <124236@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1989Sep7.235838.11756@tmsoft.uucp>
Reply-To: andy@acorn.UUCP (Andy Ingle)
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 23

In article <1989Sep7.235838.11756@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes:
>some of {f,t,e} protocols do error checking, but only on a
>'whole-file' basis & reship the whole file if something went wrong.
>This is probably unlikely enough between the computer and the modem
>that file level checking is probably sufficient (if your silo
>overflows are frequent, I'd claim you had more problems than modem
>throughput).  I don't know if anyone has tried running a telebit using
>these protocols instead of 'g'.  It would be interesting to hear the
>results.

The 'f' protocol uses a checksum at the end of each file transfer. If
it is wrong the file is sent again, if is wrong the second time uucico
closes the call.

A couple of years ago I bought a UK version of the Telebit Trailblazer
to use on a uucp link between Cambridge, UK and Palo Alto, California.
It didn't have the uucp protocol spoofing or compression but because it
was self error-correcting I used the 'f' protocol.  This worked quite
well and was much faster than 'g', but I later obtained a ROM upgrade
and found that using the 'g' protocol, with spoofing *and compression*,
was faster still.

--Andy Ingle