Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:5593 comp.unix.xenix:10973 comp.unix.i386:4045 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bywater!scifi!ramona!andrew From: andrew@ramona.Cary.NC.US (Andrew Ernest) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: Error-correcting modems & uucp Summary: flow control seems efficient to me Message-ID: <816@ramona.Cary.NC.US> Date: 8 Apr 90 01:04:34 GMT References: <963@frcs.UUCP> <21466@nuchat.UUCP> Reply-To: andrew@ramona.Cary.NC.US (Andrew Ernest) Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems Lines: 24 In article <21466@nuchat.UUCP> steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia) writes: >in the modem to buffer it. But the modem doesn't know that, >and will jiggle with the flow control if it is enabled, slowing >the whole process down noticably. Hmmm. I've been using full duplex RTS/CTS flow control ever since I installed Jim Murray's async driver and locked the interface speed on my T2000. 2400 bps uucp callers get 222 - 227 cps. Would it be much better without flow control? I agree about MNP...use only if necessary. May I add something unrelated which might come in handy for folks trying to get 2400 bps modems to talk to Telebits? Some 2400 bps modems may experience lots of connect failures trying to call a Telebit modem if the 2400 bps modem is set to detect a busy signal. On some modems this is the default setting. On my old (pre-MNP) EVEREX this sort of thing is controlled with ATX? where '?' is a single digit. X4 fails all the time. X2 works great. Note that I've redirected followups to this article to comp.dcom.modems. -- Andrew Ernest