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)