erickson@alee.UUCP (Lee Erickson) (12/24/90)
>In article <1869097d.ARN0cac@cbmami.UUCP> jason@cbmami.UUCP (Jason Goldberg) writes: >You need one of two software packages, both are PD. UUCP1.06d from Matt >Dillon (1.07 is reportedly due out next month), or UUCPPlus (I don't know >the author). ... >enhancements. Both programs can recieve news and mail from other sites as >well as pass mail to other sites, but only UUCPPlus can pass news to >another site. I NEED to pass the news on to another site. Where do I find UUCPPlus? >3. I don't really like the dmail program which seems to give you no choice >but to delete all mail after reading it, or save it to a separate file. I >sometimes like to just leave some mail in my box. Dmail has a "preserve" command which will "UNMARK and UNREAD" specified articles. -- Lee Erickson uucp: ...{rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!alee!erickson Working for but NOT ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!lock60!alee!erickson representing internet: erickson%alee@canal.org InnovaSystems, Inc. usmail: 720 Raynham Rd., Collegeville PA 19426
jason@cbmami.UUCP (Jason Goldberg) (12/24/90)
Thanks to all those to who responded to one of my many questions about running UUCP from an Amiga and for all those who helped me get it running. I would like to list all your names but so many people responded it would hardly be a summary. How to run recieve news and mail via UUCP from your Amiga: You need one of two software packages, both are PD. UUCP1.06d from Matt Dillon (1.07 is reportedly due out next month), or UUCPPlus (I don't know the author). UUCP is recomended for the beginner as it has a much more complete set of docs (still not what you would call easy to follow but I got through them all right). UUCPPlus is an enhanced version of UUCP1.06d which adds the ability to pass a news feed to another site, among other enhancements. Both programs can recieve news and mail from other sites as well as pass mail to other sites, but only UUCPPlus can pass news to another site. The one drawback of UUCP1.06d is the newsread Dnews is not to strong. There is a newsreader which comes with UUCPPlus called ARN which will work with either program and it is a much better reader. The programs seem to run under any Amiga configuration and any Hayes compatable modem. They will even run under floppies. Obviously if you plan to recieve news storage space and modem speed will be at a premium. You need only find a current UUCP site which is willing to feed you, follow the docs from UUCP1.06d and you are all set. My personal experiences: Overall I am very happy. I am posting this from my Amiga as well as sending and recieving mail regularly. I have run into a few problems though, feel free to respond if you have any answers: 1. I can't get UUCP1.06d to work at 9600 baud V.32, others have reported the same problem, while still others have had the same hardware with no problem. All of us have had the 68030 chip, someone reported that the problems went away when they moved there spool to ram: but this has not worked for me and my transfers still fail at 9600 baud. 2. I was never able to get DNews to post news. I am using Arn now and assuming that you are reading this, it has fixed my problems. 3. I don't really like the dmail program which seems to give you no choice but to delete all mail after reading it, or save it to a separate file. I sometimes like to just leave some mail in my box. Well thats about it, -Jason- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Goldberg UUCP: ucsd!serene!cbmami!jason Del Mar, CA
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (12/25/90)
jason@cbmami.UUCP (Jason Goldberg) in <1869097d.ARN0cac@cbmami.UUCP> writes:
[re: Amiga UUCP operation]
[...]
1. I can't get UUCP1.06d to work at 9600 baud V.32, others have
reported the same problem, while still others have had the same
hardware with no problem. All of us have had the 68030 chip, someone
reported that the problems went away when they moved there spool to
ram: but this has not worked for me and my transfers still fail at
9600 baud.
[...]
One comment: if you're using a V.32 modem, you want your serial port's baud
set to 19,200 same as you would for a PEP (Trailblazer) modem.
The AmigaUUCP I demo'd at FAUG earlier this year was running on a "stock"
A1000 (68000 CPU, not one of my modified specials) connected at 19,200 baud to
a StarLAN network talking to one of my UNIX boxes. During the demo I sent
several emails back-'n-forth and also UUCP'd some large files; the transfer
stats on the UNIX box (running HDB UUCP) showed an average transfer of 1,600+
chars per second during the duration of the demo.
The V.32 modems, typically with (at least) MNP 5 or V.42, "should" permit
1,400+ chars per second no sweat. And if you're using Amigas with 68030 chips
that should be a breeze; even one of the 68010 UNIX boxes I use can process
19,200 with ease. If you're still having trouble, suggest using ARTM (Amiga
Real Time Monitor 1.0 by F.J.Merten and Dietmar Jansen (comp.amiga.binaries))
to check what's going on in your system, Dale Luck's PM program (on the 1.3 WB
"EXTRAS" disk) to see if something is busy waiting, or at least "ps -ef" to
determine if you've left a game or two running in the background! :-)
If you really want some speed, get a Microcom QX (Tricom) modem with MNP 9
permitting operation at 38,400 baud ... you'd "almost" think you were on a T1
line connected to the Internet!
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) (12/25/90)
In article <37219@cup.portal.com>, Thad P Floryan writes: [Other stuff deleted] > The V.32 modems, typically with (at least) MNP 5 or V.42, "should" permit > 1,400+ chars per second no sweat. And if you're using Amigas with 68030 chips No, way more like 700cps. Most V.32 modems don't do spoofing like the telebit modems. The speed will drop the longer the distance due to the lag time for the ACKs going back over the phone curcit, it may get close to 1100 cps on NON-Compressed news between two machines talking locally but never anywere close on a long distance connect. I'm connecting with a USR HST in V.32 mode with V.42bis and am seeing about 650cps. The 68000 in the machine I'm running UUCP on has no trouble keeping up. > If you really want some speed, get a Microcom QX (Tricom) modem with MNP 9 > permitting operation at 38,400 baud ... you'd "almost" think you were on a T1 > line connected to the Internet! Still don't matter, if it doesn't do spoofing the data is going to get across and it will have to wait for the ACKs to come back. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dwight Hubbard, |-Kaneohe, Hawaii | | USENET: lron@easy.hiam or uunet!easy!lron |-GT-Power: 029/004 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
lron (12/26/90)
In article <37243@cup.portal.com>, Thad P Floryan writes: > lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) in <186abac2.ARN08a8@easy.hiam> writes: > > [...] > No, way more like 700cps. > [...] > I'm connecting with a USR HST in V.32 mode with V.42bis and am seeing > about 650cps. > > Though I already answered this, there are two more items one may wish to > consider: > > 1. I have a LOT of UUCP traffic in-out of my systems ("thadlabs") and I > periodically enable full debug mode (via shell script (this IS a UNIX box)) to > sample UUCP's song-and-dance. I've often noted that many "far-end" V.32 > modems do NOT have MNP 5 and seem to have only MNP 3 or MNP 4. Point being: > though Dwight's modem is V.32/V.42bis, the "other" modems might not be, thus > the "slower" transfers he experiences. One of my connections is to a major Both my modem and the Telebit I connect to have V.42bis and it is enabled during connects (link diagnostics on the modem show 9600 connect with LAPM/V.42bis) Most people with V.32 modems I know disable MNP-5 because it increases transmit time on compressed data. V.42bis and MNP-7 and above don't have this problem. > back-bone in Palo Alto (4 miles away) and it only has MNP 4 on a Codex modem; > I get better through-put with sites on the East Coast and even outside the > country at MNP 5, 7 or 9. Yes, but your probably not using compressed batching either. I got much higher rates before we started using compressed batching but the overall transfer times was longer. > 2. The UUCP protocol used by AmigaUUCP is *NOT* the best: it is UUCP "g" > protocol. I now most-often use "e" protocol (when feasible). I "discovered" > "e" protocol two years ago when first setting up StarLAN (1BASE5 802.3e-1988 > over twisted-pair) in my lab. I was extremely unhappy with the 2000 cps > throughput using "standard" UUCP and a colleague recommended HDB UUCP with "e" > protocol which I now use and enjoy an average of 50,000 cps over the same net > with NO other changes (i.e. keeping HDB and going back to "g" protocol again > nets only the 2000 cps). The protocol is specified in the Systems file (or > the L.sys file with the older UUCP versions) though it can also be specified > in the Devices files. Maybe someone has the time to implement other protocols > in AmigaUUCP? Note that one SHOULDN'T use "e" unless one has GOOD modems (or > a good network) and can guarantee reliable end-end connectivity. Tell me about it. We are experiencing satilite delays around a second on my only major long distance connect (Hawaii to Virgina). At 9600 it doesn't take the modem a second to transmit all 7 frames and the modem sits inactive as the ACKs go back over the line. This is the same problem that was being discused about a month ago on in comp.dcom.modems. I would love to get a hold of the 'e' protocol for the Amiga, but I understand you need an AT&T source license to get the source for it :-( > One additional note (though I posted a complete set of these specs several > months ago) from the Microcom manuals (they invented MNP): > > MNP 5 Class 5 service provides data compression, which combined with Class > 4 allows throughput of almost twice the connection speed. MNP Class > 5 dynamically adjusts to the type of data being transmitted for > maximum compression efficiency. > > MNP 7 Class 7 service provides Enhanced Data Compression, which combined > with Class 4 allows throughput of more than twice the connection > speed ... > > MNP 9 Class 9 service includes all the features of MNP CLass 7 Enhanced MNP isn't bad (we have several modems I work with that have it). But most companies don't license any of the MNP levels above MNP-5 since MNP 1-4 are all that are needed for V.42 compliance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Dwight Hubbard, |-Kaneohe, Hawaii | | USENET: lron@easy.hiam or uunet!easy!lron |-GT-Power: 029/004 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury, SysAdmin) (12/26/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jason@cbmami.UUCP
I too have problems posting news with Dnews. It doesn't seem to post.
As for Dmail, if you want to save a letter, you use the P command for
preserve. If you don't preserve the mail, it gets marked as read and
automatically deleted. I have no problems using UUCP with my Hayes Ultra 96
at 9600 bps V.32. I regularly dial out at 38400 and 19200..I have 9600
connects with no problem. Only problem I have is incomming calls that don't
seem to drop the port speed correctly. I show a lower speed connect on
the modem and in the log but the dialing in side sees garbage that must have
to do with incorrect port speeds.
-- Bob
______ Pro-Graphics BBS "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!" ________
UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!bobl | Pro-Graphics: 908/469-0049
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | America Online: Graphics3d
Internet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CompuServe: RIP
_________ ___________
Raven Enterprises 25 Raven Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08854 danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann, SubOp) (12/26/90)
In-Reply-To: message from jason@cbmami.UUCP
We seem to be able to get UUCP to work fine except when a normal 2400
baud modem calls a Hayes 9600 baud. (The 9600 can call the 2400 no problem).
Do you have any idea how to fix this? Niether of us have 68030s, just
68000s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProLine: danb20@pro-graphics ***************************
UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!danb20 * Dan Bachmann *
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!danb20@nosc.mil * Raritan Valley College *
Internet: danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com ***************************
P-Link: DanB20 <-- I only read PLink once a mo. use Internet
U.S.Mail: 509 StonyBrook Drive, Bridgewater, NJ 08807thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (12/26/90)
lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) in <186abac2.ARN08a8@easy.hiam> writes: In article <37219@cup.portal.com>, Thad P Floryan writes: [Other stuff deleted] > The V.32 modems, typically with (at least) MNP 5 or V.42, "should" > permit 1,400+ chars per second no sweat. And if you're using Amigas > with 68030 chips No, way more like 700cps. [...] I'm connecting with a USR HST in V.32 mode with V.42bis and am seeing about 650cps. The 68000 in the machine I'm running UUCP on has no trouble keeping up. Then you either have a defective modem or noisy phone lines (requiring many retransmissions). The original tests I conducted used 4+MB files and the stats agreed with "wall clock" times. I have tested hundreds of different modems in the course of consulting for one company and am quite familiar with this subject. For UUCP tests I use HDB UUCP on UNIX boxes (not the Amiga), but with a V.32 modem on my Amiga I consistently get over 1000 cps with a mixture of files daily transferring between my ftp-access site and my Amiga ... actual time is around 16 minutes per megabyte (with a DSI 9624LE V.32 modem). Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (12/26/90)
lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) in <186abac2.ARN08a8@easy.hiam> writes:
[...]
No, way more like 700cps.
[...]
I'm connecting with a USR HST in V.32 mode with V.42bis and am seeing
about 650cps.
Though I already answered this, there are two more items one may wish to
consider:
1. I have a LOT of UUCP traffic in-out of my systems ("thadlabs") and I
periodically enable full debug mode (via shell script (this IS a UNIX box)) to
sample UUCP's song-and-dance. I've often noted that many "far-end" V.32
modems do NOT have MNP 5 and seem to have only MNP 3 or MNP 4. Point being:
though Dwight's modem is V.32/V.42bis, the "other" modems might not be, thus
the "slower" transfers he experiences. One of my connections is to a major
back-bone in Palo Alto (4 miles away) and it only has MNP 4 on a Codex modem;
I get better through-put with sites on the East Coast and even outside the
country at MNP 5, 7 or 9.
2. The UUCP protocol used by AmigaUUCP is *NOT* the best: it is UUCP "g"
protocol. I now most-often use "e" protocol (when feasible). I "discovered"
"e" protocol two years ago when first setting up StarLAN (1BASE5 802.3e-1988
over twisted-pair) in my lab. I was extremely unhappy with the 2000 cps
throughput using "standard" UUCP and a colleague recommended HDB UUCP with "e"
protocol which I now use and enjoy an average of 50,000 cps over the same net
with NO other changes (i.e. keeping HDB and going back to "g" protocol again
nets only the 2000 cps). The protocol is specified in the Systems file (or
the L.sys file with the older UUCP versions) though it can also be specified
in the Devices files. Maybe someone has the time to implement other protocols
in AmigaUUCP? Note that one SHOULDN'T use "e" unless one has GOOD modems (or
a good network) and can guarantee reliable end-end connectivity.
One additional note (though I posted a complete set of these specs several
months ago) from the Microcom manuals (they invented MNP):
MNP 5 Class 5 service provides data compression, which combined with Class
4 allows throughput of almost twice the connection speed. MNP Class
5 dynamically adjusts to the type of data being transmitted for
maximum compression efficiency.
MNP 7 Class 7 service provides Enhanced Data Compression, which combined
with Class 4 allows throughput of more than twice the connection
speed ...
MNP 9 Class 9 service includes all the features of MNP CLass 7 Enhanced
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) (12/28/90)
In article <37306@cup.portal.com>, Thad P Floryan writes: > At 9600 it doesn't take the modem a second to transmit all 7 frames > and the modem sits inactive as the ACKs go back over the line. This > is the same problem that was being discused about a month ago on in > comp.dcom.modems. > > Interesting. But looking at my modems while UUCP'ing it appears the ACKs are > asynchronous (i.e. data transfer appears continuous and unbroken, and the ACKs > are just a "blip" on the LED with no interruption of data flow). And thanks Problem is a V.32 modem can send all 7 64 byte frames in less than the half second it takes the first frame to get to the other end. So it doesn't matter if the channel allows full duplex returns of the ACKs. > for the reference to "comp.dcom.modems"; another group to add to my > subscription list. Yep, they have all sorts of neat stuff there. > > I would love to get a hold of the 'e' protocol for the Amiga, but I > understand you need an AT&T source license to get the source for it :-( > > Sorry, even with my contacts at AT&T I cannot get source without a license, and > the only AT&T source I've seen is that which has been released to the PD by > AT&T (such as getopt()). Hmm, isn't there a streaming protocol ('f') around. If It is streaming I would be very interested in getting the source so I can get throuput that the modem was intended to give. > I still "qualify" modems for use with my and clients' products and, at any > given time, may have up to ten sets of modems here besides my own. I'm > presently testing the Microcom QX (MNP 9 and 38,400 baud). Yeh, the QX is a nice modem. We had a couple at work, we were testing. Only problem with it uses a differnt AT commands than the HST for it's advanced features. Course that's my fault not the modems. CDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDBDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD? 3 Dwight Hubbard 3 USENET : uunet!easy!lron 3 3 Kaneohe, Hawaii 3 GT-Power: 029/004 (lron) 3 3 3 CFR : 31:910/101 (Dwight Hubbard) 3 @DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDY
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (12/28/90)
lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) in <186bb776.ARN08b4@easy.hiam> writes:
Yes, but your probably not using compressed batching either.
True. Most my UUCP traffic comprises project data, text files, tar files,
and email. No Usenet "news" at all.
Tell me about it. We are experiencing satilite delays around a second
on my only major long distance connect (Hawaii to Virgina).
Yikes! That explains part of your problem. Reminds me of calling, say,
France, where it's 50-50 whether I get a land-line or satellite link; the
difference IS noticeable.
At 9600 it doesn't take the modem a second to transmit all 7 frames
and the modem sits inactive as the ACKs go back over the line. This
is the same problem that was being discused about a month ago on in
comp.dcom.modems.
Interesting. But looking at my modems while UUCP'ing it appears the ACKs are
asynchronous (i.e. data transfer appears continuous and unbroken, and the ACKs
are just a "blip" on the LED with no interruption of data flow). And thanks
for the reference to "comp.dcom.modems"; another group to add to my
subscription list.
I would love to get a hold of the 'e' protocol for the Amiga, but I
understand you need an AT&T source license to get the source for it :-(
Sorry, even with my contacts at AT&T I cannot get source without a license, and
the only AT&T source I've seen is that which has been released to the PD by
AT&T (such as getopt()).
MNP isn't bad (we have several modems I work with that have it). But
most companies don't license any of the MNP levels above MNP-5 since
MNP 1-4 are all that are needed for V.42 compliance.
I still "qualify" modems for use with my and clients' products and, at any
given time, may have up to ten sets of modems here besides my own. I'm
presently testing the Microcom QX (MNP 9 and 38,400 baud).
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]rick@tmiuv0.uucp (01/03/91)
In article <6535@crash.cts.com>, danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann, SubOp) writes: > We seem to be able to get UUCP to work fine except when a normal 2400 > baud modem calls a Hayes 9600 baud. (The 9600 can call the 2400 no problem). > Do you have any idea how to fix this? Niether of us have 68030s, just > 68000s. Well, I'm running Dillon's UUCP 1.06 on my 2500/30 on both the 68000 and the 68030 (a 30MB Seagate ST-138N and a 200MB Conner CP3200 on a HardFrame). I use both a Supra 2400 baud external modem and a Telebit T1000 with no problems either way. It also runs a direct line to XyClone (my 386 Unix box) at 19,200 with nary a glitch. It's a happy camper no matter what I do. Of course, I have 7MB of RAM and run a ridiculously high stack (like 50KB), but it still doesn't glitch, even with lower stack sizes. Note that the Telebit and the direct line are running off of an ASDG Dual Serial Board (DSB), since the Amiga's serial port isn't reliable at or above 9,600 baud. Ah, well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [- O] Rick Stevens ? EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop V CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet) "I'm tellin' ya, Valiant! Da whole ting stinks like yesterday's diapers!" - Baby Herman in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hunter@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au (James Gardiner [hunter]) (01/03/91)
In <186abac2.ARN08a8@easy.hiam> lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) writes: >> The V.32 modems, typically with (at least) MNP 5 or V.42, "should" permit >> 1,400+ chars per second no sweat. And if you're using Amigas with 68030 chips >No, way more like 700cps. Most V.32 modems don't do spoofing like the telebit >modems. The speed will drop the longer the distance due to the lag time for >the ACKs going back over the phone curcit, it may get close to 1100 cps on >NON-Compressed news between two machines talking locally but never anywere >close on a long distance connect. I'm connecting with a USR HST in V.32 >mode with V.42bis and am seeing about 650cps. The 68000 in the machine I'm >running UUCP on has no trouble keeping up. >> If you really want some speed, get a Microcom QX (Tricom) modem with MNP 9 >> permitting operation at 38,400 baud ... you'd "almost" think you were on a T1 >> line connected to the Internet! >Still don't matter, if it doesn't do spoofing the data is going to get across >and it will have to wait for the ACKs to come back. This brings up a question that I am surprised I have not seen before. Why is there not UUCICO out there that do a zmodem type protocal. Make this PEP spoofing obsolete. While you are there, make it bidirectional as well. Its only a matter of SOFTWARE. and UUCP being such an old standard, SHOULD have some new ideas added to it NOW to take advantage of the High speed modems around today. (there is a UUnetwork poping up here in Australia and some of the Admins are working on such a proposel slowly.) Hunter -- James Gardiner [Hunter]. System Admin, Public Access UNIX Melbourne, Australia PubNet: phoenix!hunter | (voice)+613-532-8030 (data)+613-523-9865&+613-532-8029 Internet: hunter@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au | PO BOX 54 Chadstone Centre UUCP:..!uunet!munnari!labtam!eyrie!phoenix!hunter | Melbourne Australia 3148
lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan3.122936.5929@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au>, James Gardiner [hunter] writes: > This brings up a question that I am surprised I have not seen before. > Why is there not UUCICO out there that do a zmodem type protocal. > Make this PEP spoofing obsolete. While you are there, make it > bidirectional as well. Its only a matter of SOFTWARE. > and UUCP being such an old standard, SHOULD have some new ideas > added to it NOW to take advantage of the High speed modems around today. > (there is a UUnetwork poping up here in Australia and some > of the Admins are working on such a proposel slowly.) Well, the problem isn't coming up with the new protocol as it is getting people to use it. I understand there is supposed to be a streaming UUCICO but I don't know where the people got the protocol or if it was written by them specifically. I just know they were getting transfers at about the same speeds with HST 14.4s as a Telebit using PEP does with UUCP-G. The 'E' protocol would be faster but the source isn't available besides which it would be worthless for non MNP/LAPM modems. Also, the lack of source makes porting difficult, before working on a new proposal it would probably be a good Idea to ask around for some of the other protocols. I find it difficult to believe with all the PD software out there that someone hasn't found the time to write a streaming UUCICO to lower the phone bill. The funny thing is that if the packet size for UUCICO was made 256 bytes like Xmodem, the sattelite delays wouldn't cause the problems they do because the modem wouldn't be able to send fast enough to hit the 7 packet window. CDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDBDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD? 3 Dwight Hubbard 3 USENET : uunet!easy!lron 3 3 Kaneohe, Hawaii 3 GT-Power: 029/004 (lron) 3 3 3 CFR : 31:910/101 (Dwight Hubbard) 3 @DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDY
dac@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (01/05/91)
In article <1991Jan3.122936.5929@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au>, James Gardiner [hunter] writes: > In <186abac2.ARN08a8@easy.hiam> lron@easy.hiam (Dwight Hubbard) writes: > > >> The V.32 modems, typically with (at least) MNP 5 or V.42, "should" permit > >> 1,400+ chars per second no sweat. And if you're using Amigas with 68030 chips > > >No, way more like 700cps. Most V.32 modems don't do spoofing like the telebit > >modems. The speed will drop the longer the distance due to the lag time for > >the ACKs going back over the phone curcit, it may get close to 1100 cps on > >NON-Compressed news between two machines talking locally but never anywere > >close on a long distance connect. I'm connecting with a USR HST in V.32 > >mode with V.42bis and am seeing about 650cps. The 68000 in the machine I'm > >running UUCP on has no trouble keeping up. I have found that the ONLY reliable way to achieve 9600bps comms using uucico is to drop out of 68030 mode entirely. I've had uucico stuff up on me too many times at 9600 to make it 'an odd occurence'. Turning off the cache's and burst mode helps a little, but I still got uucico aborting the transfer in 68030 mode. Normally, talking to BBS's at 9600 and doing Zmodem transfers, I don't have ANY problems. I'm not overly willing to point an accusing finger at any program, or any person, but something is definately strange with AmigaUUCP running on a 68030 machine. > (there is a UUnetwork poping up here in Australia and some > of the Admins are working on such a proposel slowly.) That sounds interesting. Especially Zmodem over normal uucico. > James Gardiner [Hunter]. System Admin, Public Access UNIX Melbourne, Australia Dac -- _l _ _ // Andrew Clayton. Canberra, Australia. I Post . (_](_l(_ \X/ ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!prolix!dac . . I am. -------- I cannot send or receive mail to or from sites outside of Australia.
dave@exactus.UUCP (Dave) (01/06/91)
rick@tmiuv0.uucp writes: > In article <6535@crash.cts.com>, danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann, S > > We seem to be able to get UUCP to work fine except when a normal 24 > > baud modem calls a Hayes 9600 baud. (The 9600 can call the 2400 no problem) > > Do you have any idea how to fix this? Niether of us have 68030s, ju > > 68000s. > > Well, I'm running Dillon's UUCP 1.06 on my 2500/30 on both the 68000 and the > 68030 (a 30MB Seagate ST-138N and a 200MB Conner CP3200 on a HardFrame). I > use both a Supra 2400 baud external modem and a Telebit T1000 with no problem > [rest of msg delete] I was under the impression that most USENET feeds require a TELEBIT Trail- blazer modem for high speed transfers. That would explain the problem that Dan is having, since the protocol used in the Telebit modems is proprietary and not compatible with Hayes 9600 Modems. The T1000 has DUAL-Standard capabilities, meaning that it is both a Telebit and a V32 modem. Dave +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | David Salas | Exactus : David Salas | | President | Genie : EXAC-DAVE | | Exactus Information Services | UUCP : exactus!dave | | (707) 524-2548 @ 2400 (8N1) | Fax : (707) 524-2546 | | (707) 524-2553 @ 9600/1400 (V32/HST) | Voice : (707) 524-2547 | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
dac@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (01/09/91)
In article <donp.8858@blkhole.UUCP>, Donald Phillips writes: > >In article <1879f14d.ARN09395@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au> dac@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) writes: > > > >I have found that the ONLY reliable way to achieve 9600bps comms using uucico > >is to drop out of 68030 mode entirely. I've had uucico stuff up on me too > > There is more to it than just having a 68030. I'm running UUCP V1.06B on an > Amiga 2000 with no accelerator card, so its just a simple 68000. I have six > different sites that I connect to. The Telebit/PEP connections work 99.9% of > the time. V.32 connections were working at one time, but when I went back to > test them after reading this thread, I found that I could only receive reliably > 95% of the time and transmit only 5% of the time. Sigh... Sounds awful. Are you sure your modem wasn't gazunked? [dead]. With the ASDG dual serial board, I have no problems at all with 9600. Getting modems talking to each other is an arcane art, and I am merely pleased that my CHOICE of sites include ones that talk to my choice of modem with a minimum of fuss. I am using a NetComm M5 (Australian made) which uses CCITT V.32 with MNP4. I can get MNP5, but haven't bothered, yet. The number of places I can call that have V.32 capability are small, and most of those are long distance. Even at V.32 long distance charges suck! > Does anybody have a spec of the "G" protocol that they'd be willing to share? Me too, me too. Post here! > BTW, the other hardware on the 2000 is a GVP SCSI controller with a Quantum 80 > Meg HD, Exabyte tape drive and a Maxtor 8760-S 636 Meg HD. I also have an ASDG > dual port serial card. I found that the internal serial port on the Amiga > couldn't keep up at speeds greater than 9600 baud. Gulp! 636Mb! Sheesh. And I thought I would be 'big league' when I get my 230Mb drive installed. Keeping up with the Jones' is very expensive, no? :-) > Donald Phillips donp@blkhole or Dac -- _l _ _ // Andrew Clayton. Canberra, Australia. I Post . (_](_l(_ \X/ ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au!prolix!dac . . I am. -------- I cannot send or receive mail to or from sites outside of Australia.
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury, SysAdmin) (01/12/91)
In-Reply-To: message from dave@exactus.UUCP
The problem with using the Hayes Ultra 96 to a 2400 bps modem with UUCP have
been fixed. It was a simple matter of not having the getty line setup for
autobauding with the -A option.
As for the Telebit story, you do NOT need a Telebit to do UUCP. I do UUCP
with my Hayes Ultra 96 all the time to other V.32 sites without a problem at
38.4K baud (V.42bis) and I don't have a problem. Most sites, however, only
support MNP5 so I can only get a 19.2K connection. Still in all, this is
quite a quick connection. When V.32bis is released, we will see those
throughput figures go WAY up!
On another note, I absolutely can not post news with Dnews that came with
UUCP 1.06D. I have been successful posting with the older Anews but I would
rather not use that program. Does anyone know why Dnews wouldn't post news to
another site? Is there something that has to be setup in the configuration
files for news to go out? Please reply as this is getting to be quite
frustrating...
-- Bob
______ Pro-Graphics BBS "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!" ________
UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!bobl | Pro-Graphics: 908/469-0049
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | America Online: Graphics3d
Internet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CompuServe: RIP
_________ ___________
Raven Enterprises 25 Raven Avenue Piscataway, NJ 08854 dac@prolix.ccadfa.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (01/13/91)
In article <6871@crash.cts.com>, Bob Lindabury, SysAdmin writes: > On another note, I absolutely can not post news with Dnews that came with > UUCP 1.06D. I have been successful posting with the older Anews but I would > rather not use that program. Does anyone know why Dnews wouldn't post news to > another site? Is there something that has to be setup in the configuration > files for news to go out? Please reply as this is getting to be quite > frustrating... Use ARN (by Roland Bless.) It works well. I am using v.64, and whilst it's still got some annoying bugs, I find it lots better than Dnews. Dnews is better than nothing. :-) Followup to comp.sys.amiga.datacomm > -- Bob Dac --
rick@tmiuv0.uucp (01/14/91)
In article <6JXBV1w163w@exactus.UUCP>, dave@exactus.UUCP (Dave) writes: > rick@tmiuv0.uucp writes: > >> In article <6535@crash.cts.com>, danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann, S >> > We seem to be able to get UUCP to work fine except when a normal 24 >> > baud modem calls a Hayes 9600 baud. (The 9600 can call the 2400 no problem) >> > Do you have any idea how to fix this? Niether of us have 68030s, ju >> > 68000s. >> >> Well, I'm running Dillon's UUCP 1.06 on my 2500/30 on both the 68000 and the >> 68030 (a 30MB Seagate ST-138N and a 200MB Conner CP3200 on a HardFrame). I >> use both a Supra 2400 baud external modem and a Telebit T1000 with no problem >> [rest of msg delete] > > I was under the impression that most USENET feeds require a TELEBIT Trail- > blazer modem for high speed transfers. That would explain the problem that > Dan is having, since the protocol used in the Telebit modems is proprietary > and not compatible with Hayes 9600 Modems. The T1000 has DUAL-Standard > capabilities, meaning that it is both a Telebit and a V32 modem. > > Dave The T1000 is not really a "dual standard" modem, as it doesn't have V.32 (I don't think it does). It does have Telebit's proprietary PEP protocol, a level of MNP (I think level 3), and another one. However, the Telebit queries the CALLING modem to see if it's capable of any of the compression schemes it has. If the CALLING modem can't do any of the special goodies, the Telebit just pumps stuff out at the CALLING modem's baud rate. The interface speed betwixt the Telebit and its host computer stays locked at whatever you set (sure makes writing software easier). The T1000 is a subset of the T2000, T2500, and TrailBlazer/TrailBlazer+ families. It has a maximum baud rate of 9600 (althought PEP protocol does give a throughput of 19,200). The TrailBlazer Plus has just about every protocol around, and can be upgraded via a ROM change. I'm sorry I don't have all the T1000 data handy (my office looks like a tornedo went through here) and the manual's buried somewhere. Now if the Hayes modem, when set to V.32 mode, will ONLY deal with V.32 modems, you've got a problem. I can't really believe that it would do such a thing, since Hayes usually has their heads on straight. But I _have_ seen modems such as that (if you set a protocol in the modem, that's all it can talk). I know that the Telebits are smart enough to adapt to whatever the calling modem is capable of, and that's why I use a Telebit. That's why lots of Usenet sites use Telebits -- they're flexible. They also have UUCP "g" protocol and Kermit spoofing internally, so your processor doesn't have to deal with it (speeds things up just a bit more). On the economic side, you can usually get Telebits cheaper than Hayes modems. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [- O] Rick Stevens ? EMail: uunet!zardoz!tmiuv0!rick -or- uunet!zardoz!xyclone!sysop V CIS: 75006,1355 (75006.1355@compuserve.com from Internet) (Opinions are mine. No one listens to me anyway.) "I'm tellin' ya, Valiant! Da whole ting stinks like yesterday's diapers!" - Baby Herman in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------