Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!xenitec!zswamp!root
From: root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V.32bis and V.17 approved by CCITT
Message-ID: <7151.27F9618A@zswamp.fidonet.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 13:07:48 EST
Organization: Izot's Swamp BBS - Kitchener, Ontario

In a letter to All, Heiko Blume (src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de ) wrote:

 >root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
>   Given that design criteria, it's damned silly that the HST can't carry 
>UUCP-g at all well.  You're right that 350 CPS is ridiculous for a 9600 bps 
>modem.

 >well, it wasn't designed for uucp, so you can't really blame it.

   It wasn't designed specifically for UUCP-g, but it definitely was designed 
for protocols (both windowed and not) which sent ACK packets which were small 
in comparison to the data packets, and UUCP-g does fall into that broad 
category, doesn't it?

   (Or am I displaying ignorance about the size of UUCP-g ACK/NAK packets?)

 >however, if you use the f-protocol for uucp you'll get nice 
 >throughput. with a HST 14400/V.42bis i get ~1800 cps on average.

   I think you'll get that from any streaming protocol (YMODEM-G, 
ZMODEM, UUCP-e, UUCP-f in order of throughput by my wild guess).  These 
protocols will also do well over PEP, V.29, and Hayes' (*non* Ultra) V-Series 
connections.
 

--  
UUCP:     watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent
Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org     | Kitchener, Ontario
FidoNet:  SYSOP, 1:221/171            | N2M 5E6 CANADA
Data:     (519) 742-8939              | (519) 741-9553
The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent 
steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be
failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. -- me