Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!njsmu!mccc!pjh From: pjh@mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: Equinox hardware flow control Message-ID: <1991Feb25.161941.5878@mccc.edu> Date: 25 Feb 91 16:19:41 GMT References: <1991Feb19.153604.13096@gwinnett.UUCP> <1377@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> Reply-To: pjh@mccc.EDU (Pete Holsberg) Organization: The College On The Other Side Of Route One Lines: 26 In article <1377@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes: =Trailblazers *do* need to use flow control in most UUCP situations. One situation =is where the modem is transmitting to "their" host, and the host can't =quite keep up to bursts. If the host doesn't flow control, it'll lose characters. =This can often be bad enough to drop connections even with UUCP packetizing =and retransmissions of packets after errors. (eg: if, from a quiescent state, =your host will frequently drop a character from a continuous 19200 baud input =burst, you're toast) This appears to be the case that runs into trouble on my system when I use xon/xoff. I don't use hardware handshaking because my ports apparently don't know how, and (since dropping xon/xoff) I've had faultless UUCP with two other Trailblazer sites, one of which provides news at up to 20 MB/day. So my experience is directly opposite yours, especially when I recall that I used to use xon/xoff at 2400 bps without a hitch. Could you explain where I'm confused about what you're saying? Thanks, Pete -- Prof. Peter J. Holsberg Mercer County Community College Voice: 609-586-4800 Engineering Technology, Computers and Math UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh 1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690 Internet: pjh@mccc.edu Trenton Computer Festival -- 4/20-21/91