Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!aegis!davidg From: davidg%aegis.or.jp@kyoto-u.ac.jp (Dave McLane) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: V.32bis and V.17 approved by CCITT Message-ID: Date: 27 Mar 91 22:41:23 GMT References: <7103.27F02712@zswamp.fidonet.org> Organization: Aegis Society Lines: 23 root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > > >Now - UUCP on these modems is another story - in the HST > > >modem at best throughput is 350 cps, while V.32 on non > > >v.42bis and non v.32bis connections runs around 880 cps. > 880 CPS is decent throughput for a non-streaming protocol over a long-haul > 9600 bps path with buffering and packetizing delays. Try Kermit, XMODEM-1K > (or YMODEM), SEAlink, and others and let me know how they perform. Try them > over the HST, over V.32, over a null modem. If and when you're finished, I'd > like to compare your result table with my experiences. You're right. It is. I have already run enough test to know that.... I guess my (sub-clinical, terminal?) dyslexia was acting in full force that day as I thougt it was saying 350 CPS was reasonable throughput for V.32. On re-reading, I see it was talking about through put in HST mode (an HST-capable modem like the USR DS supports both HST mode and V.32). Sorry for my stupidity.... --Dave