🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: net.bugs.2bsd
Article #160

Re: 2.9BSD uucico s l o w n e s s

#160
From: Mark Horton
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 1984 20:58
12 lines
1360 bytes
The sleep seems to be a (broken) variation of an idea I posted long ago.
Unfortunately, the code you posted is clearly wrong.  The right way
to do it is, after the read returns, if it returned short, to sleep.
The code posted unconditionally sleeps before trying the first read.

Measurements showed that at 1200 baud it cut way down on system load
(and this really makes a difference - a uucico at 1200 baud only adds
about .2 to our load average instead of 1 like it used to) with almost
no effect on throughput rates, but at 9600 baud it hurts throughput
drastically (since 1 second is far too long to sleep at 9600 baud)
and is a bad idea.  At 4800 it's a close call, and a local decision
should be made.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <392@cbosgd.UUCP>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark
References: <350@cepu.UUCP> <oliveb.183>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 3/23/84; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.bugs.2bsd,net.bugs.uucp,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: 2.9BSD uucico   s l o w n e s s
Message-ID: <392@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Oct-84 16:58:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.392
Posted: Thu Oct  4 16:58:31 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Oct-84 04:02:53 EDT
References: <350@cepu.UUCP> <oliveb.183>
Reply-To: mark@cbpavo.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 12