Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site haring.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!qumix!amd!noao!hao!seismo!mcvax!turing!haring!teus From: teus@haring.UUCP Newsgroups: net.news,net.dcom Subject: Re: 2400 baud modems and uucp inefficiencies Message-ID: <318@haring.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 22:15:47 EDT Article-I.D.: haring.318 Posted: Fri Oct 5 22:15:47 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Oct-84 21:19:51 EDT References: <184@oliveb.UUCP> <54@redwood.UUCP> Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 19 Xref: mcvax net.news:1632 net.dcom:464 Apparently-To: rnews@turing.LOCAL UUCP cannot and will not be full duplex (see the remarks of Jim for that). Also for many systems or links there is no need to. Of course full duplex will help but not that many as you think. Also doubling the speed will not say you are doubling the effective baud rate. The effective speed is depending on many other things. We did some extensive mesuring on "splendid quality" lines and came up that there is fi no diff in effectiveness for 4800 and 9600 lines. Sometimes even 300 baud for our trans atlantic links had a better effective speed as the 1200 baud links. So the quality of a line is a deal as well. About X.25: X.25 is cheaper if you already the equipment around, and can split the subscription costs over more links. As well you should run a protocol which is as simple (or cheap in overhead) as possible (f.i. f-protocol). F.i. if you use the g-protocol of UUCP and are o nly running it for one link during say 45 minutes per day, it is far more cheaper to do it via phone and normal modems. -- Teus Hagen teus@mcvax.UUCP (CWI, Amsterdam)