🚀 go-pugleaf

marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:
>Hi Folks...
>
>	Stupid question of the week...maybe even the year...but it
>has me curious :)

So of course you crosspost it to hell, just so everybody can know
how stupid it is.

>	Why do I get better speeds with zmodem using v.32bis on
>a Worldblazer then uucico?

Because Zmodem is a better protocol with less overhead than UUCP's
g protocol.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //

william E Davidsen writes:
|>   Greater packet overhead, I suspect. Are you using uucp spoofing to
|> eliminate sending all the overhead on the wire? S111.

this perpetuates a myth regarding telebit uucp spoofing.  it is
false.  the 'g' headers are *not* stripped, they are sent from one
modem to the next. 

	peter

marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:

> Hi Folks...
> 
> 	Stupid question of the week...maybe even the year...but it
> has me curious :)
> 
> 	Why do I get better speeds with zmodem using v.32bis on
> a Worldblazer then uucico?

   ZMODEM is a streaming protocol.  While it may incurr higher overhead than 
some protocols (such as YMODEM-G), it does a good job of maintaining roughly 
95% of maximum possible throughput on any given link - up to the machines' 
maximum capabilities, of course.

   Still, if you have protocol spoofing enabled on the WB (I believe that the 
WB supports spoofing over V.32bis, does it not?), you should get close 
figures.

   If not, then what's happening is that the transmitting end sends 3 (or 7) 
packets of 64 bytes long before the ACK for the first packet arrives, so the 
transmitter shuts up... and throughput capability goes unused.  This pause is 
what ZMODEM circumvents.

Geoffrey Welsh, 7 Strath Humber Court, Islington, Ontario, M9A 4C8 Canada
geoff@zswamp.uucp, [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff (416)258-8467
         Coincidentally, most people who fight for "fairness" would be
         significantly better off under the system they call "fair"...

In article <1992Sep2.223307.29625@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman) writes:
| william E Davidsen writes:
| |>   Greater packet overhead, I suspect. Are you using uucp spoofing to
| |> eliminate sending all the overhead on the wire? S111.
| 
| this perpetuates a myth regarding telebit uucp spoofing.  it is
| false.  the 'g' headers are *not* stripped, they are sent from one
| modem to the next. 

  Can you expand on that? From stats I keep I see an improvement in
performance using spoofing, so I'm not sure exactly how this "myth"
influences my numbers. My reading of the Telebit info leads me to
believe that the acks are locally generated, never sent between modems,
and that parts of the headers are compressed, fiddled, and/or stripped
such that they reduce the bits going over the wire.

  I willing to believe that Telebit might state something not true, or
that I might misread their description, but I find it hard to believe
that would confuse my scripts which read the data and tell me what's
happening for transfer rates.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.