Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:4850 comp.dcom.modems:6367
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!ox.com!lokkur!scs
From: scs@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: What use is Trailblazer compression -- Summary of replies (long)
Message-ID: <1990Jul29.020727.20158@lokkur.dexter.mi.us>
Date: 29 Jul 90 02:07:27 GMT
References: <1990Jul4.195351.9324@tsa.co.uk> <1990Jul19.154334.27957@tsa.co.uk>
Organization: Inland Sea
Lines: 20

domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) writes:

>% Is Trailblazer compress any use with uucp for mail transfer?  Although I'm
>% pretty sure it would be counter-productive with compressed news batches, is
>% there likely to be any increase in throughput if I have my Trailblazer
>% attempt to negotiate compression when exchanging plaintext mail with sites
>% which are not newsfeeds?  Has anybody run tests?  Was it a win?

Wayne Sung <sung@concert.net> said
> This is my own experience: from home to work I just about can not get the
> full link speed of Trailblazers (it usually winds up at just under 15000
> rather than the 18000 you can get).

I post this with hesitance, as it's based on three-year-old memories
of a casual conversation.  So take it with a big grain of salt: Peter
Honeyman said that when you add in the overhead of the PEP protocol
and the uucp conversations on both ends, maximum uucp thruput on a
pair of trailblazers is in the high 14000s.  This is pretty consistant
with Sung's experience, but does say that he'll get no improvement
with faster terminal servers.