Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:5598 comp.unix.i386:4050 comp.unix.xenix:10977
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!ndcvb!cartan!ndmath!nstar!larry
From: larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Error-correcting modems & uucp
Summary: modem flow control
Message-ID: <511454@nstar.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 90 19:10:27 GMT
References: <963@frcs.UUCP> <21466@nuchat.UUCP> <816@ramona.Cary.NC.US>
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Northern Star, Notre Dame, IN USA
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?
> 
> I agree about MNP...use only if necessary.

Why not use MNP all the time?  With the modem locked at 19200 to the
machine - even 2400 baud callers with MNP get transfers in the 280cps
range if their modem is also locked at a higher baud rate.

I would assume if you kept your blazer locked at a fixed DTE speed -
slower speed MNP callers would also get a throughput greater than
the connect speed.


-- 
...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry  -or-  larry@nstar