Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!mephisto!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!axion!masalla.fulcrum.bt.co.uk!igb
From: I.G.Batten@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: relaynews too slow
Message-ID: <{YL%=|-@masalla.fulcrum.bt.co.uk>
Date: 26 Sep 90 08:27:42 GMT
References: <49453@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> <1990Sep25.153101.2437@zoo.toronto.edu> <49460@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>
Sender: root@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Root on Masalla)
Organization: BT Fulcrum, Birmingham
Lines: 20
Disclaimer: Organisation given for identification purposes only

jerry@olivey.olivetti.com (Jerry Aguirre) writes:
> It is a pretty convincing illusion.  Certainly the NNTP/network
> connections transfer a lot more news with less CPU load than UUCP
> had.  The nntpxmit asks if the receiver has a particular message

This is no advert for NNTP, merely a statement that UUCP over serial
lines is an IO bandwidth hog in a way that TCP isn't.  My newsfeed is
via a 64K leased line, which replaced 2K4 modems and 2K4 X25.  Since I
already had UUCP over TCP running here for local purposes, we initially
ran our existing 100K 8-bit compressed batches over ``e'' protocol.
This screamed, and the inbound uucico comsumed almost no resources.  I
then switched to NNTP for reasons of modernity and suddenly found
performance going through the floor, with the nntpd consuming
significant resources.  I'm essentially a leaf site, so I rarely get an
article presented more than once.

I now run faster with bizarre tweaks to the NNTP batching, but often
think that UUCP over TCP would be neat to go back to...

ian