Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!nuchat!steve
From: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Error-correcting modems & uucp
Message-ID: <21572@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 90 18:39:36 GMT
References: <963@frcs.UUCP> <21466@nuchat.UUCP> <816@ramona.Cary.NC.US>
Reply-To: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia)
Organization: Houston Public Access
Lines: 19

In article <816@ramona.Cary.NC.US> andrew@ramona.Cary.NC.US (Andrew Ernest) writes:
>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?

Probably not -- you're getting pretty close to theoretical.

If your driver responds to flow control fast enough it won't
cause a problem at low speeds.  It is also possible that the T2000
is smarter about its buffer limits (or has larger buffers) than
my TB+s and doesn't jiggle the flow control as much.  I see a CTS
toggle for every packet outgoing, and can measure a small difference
in throughput.

I have to support dial-in users, so the modems run with flow
control on indial but my outdial scripts turn it off.  The
difference is not large enough to bother figuring out a way
to turn it off on indial uucp, but it is measurable.