Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!nosun!qiclab!m2xenix!news
From: news@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: How efficient/fast is uucp?
Message-ID: <1990Aug25.193329.13643@m2xenix.psg.com>
Date: 25 Aug 90 19:33:29 GMT
References: <8464@pitt.UUCP> <1556.26d282ea@dcs.simpact.com>
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Lines: 24

In <1556.26d282ea@dcs.simpact.com> jeh@dcs.simpact.com writes:
>In article <8464@pitt.UUCP>, jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes:
>> How efficient is/are the protocol(s) used by uucp?  How do they compare
>> with zmodem?  For some reason (not based on anything resembling
>> knowledge), I have the impression that uucp uses crufty, old, slow
>> protocol(s).  Am I in left field?  
> Yes, you're in left field.  

Well, being out there sure has not obscured his vision, then.

For those of us moving significant amounts of _mail_ with uucp-g, let me tell
you it stinks.  The inter-file handshaking eats it to death.  While I get
intra-file rates of 1000cps, for a couple of hundred mail messages, the
effective overall rate is under 200cps.

Some of us HDB smail3ers are hacking the stuff from BSMTP, but few sites (e.g.
uunet) use it, so it is not of significant help.

Also note that, while zmodem would be helpful with news on noisy lines
(zmodem's restart is hot), it would not be of significant help with the many
small mail files.

-- 
..!{uunet,qiclab,intelhf}!m2xenix!news