Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!datsun!shannon
From: shannon%datsun@Sun.COM (Bill Shannon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: MNP 5 vs. uucp 'g'
Keywords: MNP error modem
Message-ID: <124412@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 11 Sep 89 07:34:26 GMT
References: <124236@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <38@fmsystm.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 12

In article <38@fmsystm.UUCP>, macy@fmsystm.UUCP (Macy Hallock) writes:
> In article <124236@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> shannon%datsun@Sun.COM (Bill Shannon) writes:
> >In particular, I've seen some claims of fantastic throughput using the
> >Microcom modem at 38400 baud with MNP 9.  Are people using uucp's 'g'
> >protocol in this configuration?  Does MNP 9 not have this problem?
> 
> We are testing some error correcting V.32 modems at this time.
> It would appear that uucp g usually works on them, but there is
> still some delay added over using t or e protocol.

"some"?  for me, it's *a lot*.  I get about 830 cps at 9600 baud using
MNP 4 and about 450 cps at 19200 baud using MNP 5.