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