home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11348 can.uucp:185
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,can.uucp
- Path: sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!wildcan!sq!chance!john
- From: john@chance.gts.org (John R MacMillan)
- Subject: Re: UUCP 'g' vs. MNP & V.42
- Message-ID: <1992Jul29.021351.14897@chance.gts.org>
- Organization: Reverse - esreveR :noitazinagrO
- References: <1992Jul23.180658.20724@eci386.uucp> <1992Jul24.034646.26340@chance.gts.org> <1992Jul27.190940.3268@eci386.uucp>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:13:51 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
-
- |> I don't know, I use MNP-5 (and hence 4) on two of my mostly-mail (ie.
- |> uncompressed) connections and I see much improved throughput. Even on
- |> much of the compressed stuff there is some improvement, though there
- |> is sometimes also degradation.
- |
- |As I said, it depends upon the compressibility of the data, the
- |configuration of the UUCP 'g' parameters, the exact nature of any line
- |errors, and the ability of the modem to spoof UUCP 'g'.
-
- Actually I was responding primarily to the comment:
-
- |Anybody running MNP at any level with UUCP 'g' should have their modem
- |and UUCP configurations examined! :-)
-
- ...since I think my configurations are fine.
-
- |[The latter is a measured average, not theoretical, from regular MNP-4
- |connections over V.22bis (i.e. 2400bps).]
-
- I'm running MNP5 over V.22bis on two connections and my measured
- average _improvement_ is 20% on both connections. And one of those
- connections is partly compressed news batche.
-
- |So, in general, unless you have specific requirements, it is best to
- |disable MNP completely when dialing out with UUCP.
-
- But then again, maybe not. :-)
-