Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.modems:5214 comp.unix.xenix:9928 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!coherent!dplatt From: dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: Trailblazer Plus & disappointing throughput... Keywords: throughput Message-ID: <45921@improper.coherent.com> Date: 7 Feb 90 17:52:40 GMT References: <1844@oneb.UUCP> <511168@nstar.UUCP> <1990Feb7.011113.15033@vicom.com> Reply-To: dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA Lines: 29 In article <1990Feb7.011113.15033@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes: > DON'T use XON/XOFF with UUCP spoofing! The UUCP "g" protocol does not > allow for inband signalling. Quite so! My experience is as follows: if your machine's serial ports will support the de-facto-standard RTS/CTS hardware flow control, use it... enable it on your machine, and configure the Telebit modem to use this form of flow control. If your machine does not support RTS/CTS flow-control, do NOT use XON/XOFF flow control during UUCP connections (spoofed or otherwise). Instead, tell the Telebit to use NO flow control whatsoever! This is often a very important step. If you configure the Telebit to use RTS/CTS flow control, and your host doesn't support it, you'll almost certainly lose data during non-spoofed UUCP transfers. If you configure for XON/XOFF flow control, neither spoofed nor non-spoofed UUCP transfers will work correctly, as Larry pointed out. Saying "No flow control, please" is much safer than requesting a flow-control which either does not work or is incompatible with the higher-level protocols. At least, this is my experience with a TrailBlazer Plus. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 493-8805 UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303