Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncc!lyndon From: lyndon@ncc.Nexus.CA (Lyndon Nerenberg) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: more real data for Trailblazers and Argentina Message-ID: <10266@ncc.Nexus.CA> Date: 6 Jun 88 00:45:56 GMT References: <14605@uunet.UU.NET> <10127@mcdchg.UUCP> Reply-To: lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) Organization: Nexus Computing Inc. Lines: 26 In article <10127@mcdchg.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: [ Stats on uunet's throughput deleted ] > [ ... ] But wait! Look >at the wall clock time. I am assuming that this set of 11 transfers took >place on a single call. I have added the total bytes and get 376,334 in >12 minutes. This works out to be 522.7 cps, or slightly better than half >what it appears to be at first. Now, I know that there is some additional >time used to send a short overhead file with uucp, but it really seems to >me that there's an awful lot of think time going on between transfers. Indeed, this is the case between us and uunet. Over the course of a month, our throughput stats show incoming data from uunet averages out at about 450CPS, if you include the delays between files. Traffic from us to uunet is a more respectable 750CPS (our TB's talk to a Sun 3/280 at 9600 baud). I too have spent countless hours watching the lights and the log file. It's not hard to tell when uunet is busy :-) I have a nasty suspicion that some faster drives on uunet would make a difference. -- {alberta,utzoo,uunet}!ncc!lyndon lyndon@Nexus.CA