wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) (03/26/90)
Xref: neoucom unix-pc.general:4214 comp.sys.att:9320 >I have run some file transfers at both 9600 and 19200 and to be >quite honest, I doubt that you will notice any difference. I >couldn't. > >bill gunshannon It does make a difference on my installation. I use Unix 3.51 with the HDB uucp kit. I have a Trailblazer 2000 attached to my serial port. A couple of days ago, several of the news batches I received were 250K (the IBM binaries group). The xferstats showed a throughput of 1400 and 1398 char/sec. If one examines HDB xferstats for only small files, there is not much difference between 9600 and 19200 bps. The xferstats include a fixed overhead time in dispatching the file. Of course, this is fair; if all one has is small files, then the overhead is longer than the transmission time, so the port speed doesn't matter. The other mitigating factor is having a fast host on the other end. Before, I had a vax 750 on the other end of my link. I could receive 1000+ char/sec from the vax, but the vax could only take ~650 char/sec from my 3b1. Now that there is an HP 9000/835 on the other end, I get ~1400 char/sec service both directions. I believe that now my 3b1 is the slower of the pair ( :-) ). Actually, the Trailblazer is going to be the limiting factor because on a perfect line the Trailbalzer has 18000 bps raw rate, but that is reduced to 14400 bps because of the overhead internal to the Trailblazer in managing the channel. Bill -- Bill Mayhew Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm