Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!gatech!mcnc!rutgers!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: uucp to hundreds of sites
Message-ID: <3296@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 10 Feb 88 09:30:06 GMT
References: <253@amanue.UUCP> <238@intek01.UUCP>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 24

In article <238@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes:
> 
> I haven't done this, but I have thought about a similar setup.  Why
> put all the load on the host?  If you set up a "chain reaction" such
> that the host calls 2 (or 4 or 10) systems, those systems each call
> 2, and so forth, then you don't need concentrated processor power
> anywhere (as far as UUCP goes, anyhow).
 
NONONONONONONONO, this guy will have enough problems assuring that the
batches of data from the remote sites are actually transmitted to the
central site and received intact.  Unless he installs some kind of
higher level controls and batch tracking, he's likely to have real
problems with the uucp "works right most of the time" transmission
behavior.  Adding multi-hop or alternate paths would transform the
uncontrolled situation form an occasional "missing" batch to endless
problems.

> Why buy a Sequent when you could get by with an AT? :)

Why not?   8-)
-- 
George Robbins - now working for,	uucp: {uunet|ihnp4|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing	arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net
Commodore, Engineering Department	fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)