Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!serene!rfarris
From: rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Is UUNET going to upgrade?
Message-ID: <1991Jun11.053825.13936@rfengr.com>
Date: 11 Jun 91 05:38:25 GMT
References: <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> <7360@mjbtn.JOBSOFT.COM> <1991Jun10.144434.21216@m2xenix.psg.com>
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Lines: 27

In article <1991Jun10.144434.21216@m2xenix.psg.com>
randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) writes:

> m2xenix is moving a few megabytes a day to/fro uunet via
> uucp, and has seen no degradation in service/throughput.

I get a *lot* of login failures.  I'm considering calling 
a V.32 CompuServe node instead of the (cheaper) direct node,
just so I don't have to pay for login failures.


> I do like the idea of decentralizing, as I fear the single
> point of failure problem.  But managing a distributed
> system is nowhere near as 'easy' as a central site.

I don't see much advantage (other than redundancy) to
decentralizing.  For instance, calls out of state are
generally cheaper than long distance calls in-state, and it
doesn't matter which of the lower 48 you're calling; with
Reach-Out America, it's $6.30 an hour, no matter what.  

If they were to put a node on the other side of San Diego
from me, it would still be cheaper to call VA.

--
Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice (619) 259-6793
rfarris@rfengr.com     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757