Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!llama!daveb
From: daveb@llama.rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Telebit + MicroVAX + Ultrix 2.0
Message-ID: <1737@rtech.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 88 18:23:34 GMT
References: <1704@rtech.UUCP> <15434@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Sender: news@rtech.UUCP
Reply-To: daveb@llama.UUCP (Dave Brower)
Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA
Lines: 20

In article <15434@oliveb.olivetti.com> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) sez:
>In article <1704@rtech.UUCP> I say:
>>Before I start whacking away at cables, I'd like to know what experience
>>anyone has had with making hardware flow control work between a
>>Trailblazer and a MicroVAX II running Ultrix 2.0.  We're having the
>>typical problem where you don't want ^S/^Q on a line being used by
>>uucp, but do want interactive dialup to/from slower modems to work.
>
>But you don't NEED flow control for UUCP.  The ACKs in the 'g' protocol
>provide enough flow control.  Besides, I assume that when the
>Trailblazer goes into 'g' spoofing mode it disables xon-xoff
>processing.
>			Jerry Aguirre

Yes you do, if you are also using the TB as a dialin line.  UUCP takes
care of itself OK, but when a user cats a file, you need some flow
control to keep the CPU from overruning the modem.

-dB
"Do you programmers do sh*t like this a lot?"   "Every g*d*mn day."
{amdahl, cpsc6a, mtxinu, ptsfa, sun, hoptoad}!rtech!daveb daveb@rtech.uucp