Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:6842 news.admin:15213
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!nsc!pyramid!csg
From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,news.admin
Subject: Re: Is UUNET going to upgrade?
Message-ID: <159229@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 13 Jun 91 16:12:17 GMT
References: <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 34

As an outside observer who gets a close look inside every now and then, I'd
say that the Number 1 concern at UUNet is machine resources, and has been for
several years. Everyone here on the Net seems to keep coming up with clever
solutions, and wondering why UUNet doesn't try something like that. Trust me:
all the easy ideas have been tried already.


In article <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes:
>
>	Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know
>about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when
>communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and
>stops talking.
>	It sounds like their Sequent is all decked out and can't be
>upgraded any further. Is this true? What I was thinking would be beneficial
>for them is if they split into two or three hub computers, rather than
>just their main one. They could place these computers around the U.S.
>in strategic locations (kind of like major-POPs). 
>	This would be beneficial for them since it would reduce the
>load on any one machine. If they NFS mounted their files across the
>network, then they wouldn't have to have their whole archive on one
>computer too.
>	I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think?
>Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a 
>discussion going.
>
>	- Jiro Nakamura
>	jiro@shaman.com
>
>
>-- 
>Jiro Nakamura				jiro@shaman.com
>The Shaman Group			(607) 256-5125 VOICE
>"Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"	(607) 277-1440 FAX/Data