jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/09/91)
Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and stops talking. It sounds like their Sequent is all decked out and can't be upgraded any further. Is this true? What I was thinking would be beneficial for them is if they split into two or three hub computers, rather than just their main one. They could place these computers around the U.S. in strategic locations (kind of like major-POPs). This would be beneficial for them since it would reduce the load on any one machine. If they NFS mounted their files across the network, then they wouldn't have to have their whole archive on one computer too. I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a discussion going. - Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com The Shaman Group (607) 256-5125 VOICE "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!" (607) 277-1440 FAX/Data
root@mjbtn.JOBSOFT.COM (Mark J. Bailey [ADMIN]) (06/10/91)
In <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know >about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when >communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and >stops talking. Hi, Well, I was beginning to think it was me! :-) I have the following failure almost everytime I talk with uunet more than a few minutes: uucp uunet (6/10-5:22:55,20864,32) REMOTE REQUESTED (uunet!D.uunetByCz2 --> mjbtn!D.uunetSyCz2 (uucp)) uucp uunet (6/10-5:23:12,20864,33) REMOTE REQUESTED (uunet!D.uunetXyCz0 --> mjbtn!X.uunetEyCz3 (uucp)) uucp uunet (6/10-5:26:44,20864,34) BAD READ (expected ANY got FAIL) uucp uunet (6/10-5:26:44,20864,34) FAILED (conversation complete tty2C 402) The real killer for me has been that NOTHING has changed in my site config- uration in MONTHS! All of this started around the time of their last "upgrade" as Jiro is indicating. I have also had a marked increase in the number of login failures (both to 800-lines and regular line) on the front end. In the past, uunet connections were almost never interrupted from start to finish. As Jiro has emphasized, something does need to be done. I have addressed my problems to postmaster@uunet (and while I know they are busy) but I have not been responded to yet. It seems that at a certain point, they will start moving "backwards" in time (much like the imense load on Simtel20 - a incomparibly valuable resource on a system that almost cannot operate with the load of archivees). Now, don't get me wrong, I am a very satisfied UUNET customer, and have been for a while. Surely new hardware and network topology should be possible with the revenues they must be generating (or are going to potentially generate - if looked at from possibly a banker's point of view). I too would like to hear other's feelings and comments on the situation and possibly some shared input from some of the uunet crew as well. The service is invaluable, but competition is growing, and I am not exactly thrilled that I am paying for 3 minutes (in some cases) of "dead" time when the timeout/ alarm sequence begins before a failure is reported. I am not mad, just a little concerned. Mark. -- Mark J. Bailey, N4XHX _______/====X11====\_______ USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 | JobSoft | VOICE: +1 615 893 0098 | Design & Development Co.| UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!mjb, ...!raider!mjbtn!mjb | Murfreesboro, TN USA | DOMAIN: mjb@mjbtn.JOBSOFT.COM CIS: 76314,160 --------------------------- <KA9Q-UNIX-USERS Mailing List-Subscribe: ka9q-unix-requests@mjbtn.jobsoft.com>
alek@spatial.com ( Alek O. Komarnitsky ) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > > Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know >about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when >communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and >stops talking. > It sounds like their Sequent is all decked out and can't be >upgraded any further. Is this true? What I was thinking would be beneficial >for them is if they split into two or three hub computers, rather than >just their main one. They could place these computers around the U.S. >in strategic locations (kind of like major-POPs). > This would be beneficial for them since it would reduce the >load on any one machine. If they NFS mounted their files across the >network, then they wouldn't have to have their whole archive on one >computer too. > I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? >Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a >discussion going. How about using a local feed? Another posting discussed feeds from the local University. For those not-so-non-profit organizations, my impression is that there are other sources available - are the PSI's of the world really that bad/expensive? We have the Colorado Supernet locally which looks very promising and seems reasonably priced. Although I hope to continue getting our news feed from a friendly neighbor, we will probably switch our E-mail over to CSN soon. I would hope that as additional funding (ala Gore's bill) becomes available, more and more regional hubs will be opened up with relaxed restrictions. Alek Komarnitsky 303-449-0649 Software Tools Manager, Spatial Technology, Inc. 2425 55th Street, Bldg A alek@spatial.com Boulder, CO 80301-5704 P.S. Ok co.general, my apologies for not including a Miller Moth/etc. story. But I think the guys from Golden have a good thing going.
tneff@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Neff) (06/11/91)
To those of you who were wondering what happened to UUNET: | From uunet.uu.net!liaison Tue Jun 11 09:37:28 1991 | From: liaison@uunet.uu.net (UUNET Customer Liaison) | Message-Id: <9106111336.AA10720@uunet.UU.NET> | Subject: Re: No News? | Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 9:36:42 EDT | X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10] | | > I haven't had news batches for a day. When will things get going again? | | We have been having hardware problems (controller board) on they server | that does news (machine name batch, how clever!) since last Thursday. | The machine started crashing Friday morning and continued to do so throughout | the weekend. Each time it crashed it took pot shots at uucico on the | other servers. | | We are working with the system manufacturer to correct the problem. In | the meantime, batch has been disabled in order to save uucico on the | other servers. | | I have no time-frame for correction of the problem....and so it goes..... | | -- | Lori Leonard liaison@uunet.uu.net | Customer Liaison uunet!liaison -- Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP or tneff@dasys1.UUCP
gary@sci34hub.sci.com (Gary Heston) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > [ moan, groan, and suggestion deleted... ] > I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? >Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a >discussion going. I'm sure if you wanted to donate a couple of more Sequents, a few disc farms, and the T-3 links, they'd be glad to install them around the country so your thruput would be higher. I believe they already have multiple machines at Falls Church; trying to operate multiple sites across the country would cost lots more than the link charges do now. I've ask about what it would take to get a POP here, but haven't received a reply yet. They're probably trying to figure out just what kind of a nut I am.... :-) You might schedule your connections during low-traffic periods; the postmaster there might be able to recommend some times. It would be to all our (their customers) benefit to spread the load around. -- Gary Heston System Mismanager and technoflunky uunet!sci34hub!gary or My opinions, not theirs. SCI Systems, Inc. gary@sci34hub.sci.com I support drug testing. I believe every public official should be given a shot of sodium pentathol and ask "Which laws have you broken this week?".
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (06/12/91)
In <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know >about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when >communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and >stops talking. > [details deleted] > I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? >Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a >discussion going. Well, I've been a satisfied customer for a few months now, but after looking at the xferstats file recently I have to agree. It disturbs me that I am paying for connect time and sometimes the rates are terrible, and other times the rates are great. I have reason to believe it's not me because my system load is relatively stable and I converse with another system that maintains consistant rates. It does bother me that they are charging for connect time and the inadequacy of their system is costing me money. Sounds crazy, but maybe they should drop their rates during peak hours when they know their system can't give you peak performance. -- -----------------------+--------------------------------------------------- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki| The opinions expressed here are my own and are not chip@oshcomm.osha.gov | supported or even generally accepted by OSHA. :-) -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (06/12/91)
I should note that I posted that note from Lori Leonard without asking her permission; I ought to know better, and I apologize. I was upset because UUNET has become pretty darn important to the connectivity of Usenet, and when they know they're going to have to go down for a while they really ought to let the world know (at least their customers). If you agree with me, let them know. In the meantime, they're back up and batching like mad...
fdr@fdrpc.UUCP (Frank Rockenstein) (06/13/91)
> > Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know > about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when > communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and > stops talking. I am experiencing the same problem. Your solution sounds like a fine idea - except I would vote for running "Waffle" on a dos board ( one line per board ) with NFS . At $100 per board 286 16 mhz - you could do a thousand lines for $100,000 mas o menos. Yeah I know Waffle lacks a few necessary features and you will need some function servers for the accounts but this is a design your own network kind of thread isn,t it?? Alternately, lets put an etherbone in every telco CO ( I've already proposed this Ha Ha) instead of the CO lan "data switch virtual circuit" set ups which are now being implemented. Forget ISDN thru the switch - just let me have the v. 32 bis 192 kbit local loop digital link running slip into the bone. Come out of there ds2 to a regional hub running FDDI or MAN ( Does MAN still exist??) thence ds3 on to the national hub in DC where UUNET can have a direct fddi protocol port to its MIT GIGAFLOP 90,000 (just guessing) dos board multiprocessor IP server - think how much they will save on telebits... That should take care of the timeout problem.... &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& I am my own node now. If you too would like to be your own node, mail to node@fdrpc.UUCP ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (06/13/91)
As an outside observer who gets a close look inside every now and then, I'd say that the Number 1 concern at UUNet is machine resources, and has been for several years. Everyone here on the Net seems to keep coming up with clever solutions, and wondering why UUNet doesn't try something like that. Trust me: all the easy ideas have been tried already. In article <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > > Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know >about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when >communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and >stops talking. > It sounds like their Sequent is all decked out and can't be >upgraded any further. Is this true? What I was thinking would be beneficial >for them is if they split into two or three hub computers, rather than >just their main one. They could place these computers around the U.S. >in strategic locations (kind of like major-POPs). > This would be beneficial for them since it would reduce the >load on any one machine. If they NFS mounted their files across the >network, then they wouldn't have to have their whole archive on one >computer too. > I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? >Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a >discussion going. > > - Jiro Nakamura > jiro@shaman.com > > >-- >Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com >The Shaman Group (607) 256-5125 VOICE >"Bring your dead, dying shamans here!" (607) 277-1440 FAX/Data
ake@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun12.012806.25633@osh3.OSHA.GOV>, chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > In <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > >> Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know >>about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when >>communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and >>stops talking. >> [details deleted] >> I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? >>Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a >>discussion going. > > Well, I've been a satisfied customer for a few months now, but after > looking at the xferstats file recently I have to agree. It disturbs me > that I am paying for connect time and sometimes the rates are terrible, > and other times the rates are great. I have reason to believe it's not > me because my system load is relatively stable and I converse with > another system that maintains consistant rates. > > It does bother me that they are charging for connect time and the > inadequacy of their system is costing me money. Sounds crazy, but maybe > they should drop their rates during peak hours when they know their > system can't give you peak performance. I always wondered why they charged for connect time. If you have a 2400 baud modem and pay for your own phone call you get it twice as bad. First you pay the long distance carrier for a longer call duration then uunet hits you for more connect time. I guess the assumption if they want everyone to get trailblazers to increase throughput. I think the problem now is so many have gotten the high speed modems that their system can't handle the throughput! If they continue to have a problem it might be fairer to charge by the kbyte of data transferred then add a small sur-charge for slower speed modems. This would charge evenly even if the system at their end is going slow. It would not reduce the phone bill however. Right now, what is the driving factor to speed up their system? If it runs slower then customers will use more connect time and their bill will be higher. Let's hope they use some of the additional money they collect due to the slower throughput and upgrade their systems. Earle _____________________________________________________________________________ ____ ____ ___ Earle Ake /___ /___/ / / Science Applications International Corporation ____// / / /__ Dayton, Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: ake@dayton.saic.com uucp: dayvb!ake SPAN: 28284::ake
fg041@unocss.unomaha.edu (fg041) (06/15/91)
> Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know >about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when >communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and >stops talking. Last week we (not this site, another one) had several sessions with UUNET which croaked due to timeouts. I sent them a note about this and got an apology and they explained it was a disk controller problem and that it would be fixed Real Soon Now. It was, and sessions since Tuesday have been ok. (We still see frequent 1-2 second pauses, but everyone tells me this is normal for UUNET.) > ... This would be beneficial for them since it would reduce the >load on any one machine. If they NFS mounted their files across the >network, then they wouldn't have to have their whole archive on one >computer too. The note I received implied that they were running different machines for news and mail. I watched a couple of the bad sessions and saw it hang just at the point all mail came in and it would normally start sending the news batches. A couple of times I forced uucico to do an immediate re-poll and got the news to come through fine, but again sometimes it did not. > I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? >Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a >discussion going. The only gripe I have is that the throughput is less than at other sites. However, we recently switched from a few 'good buddy' type news feeds to UUNET and it is a world of difference as far as quality of the feed. After putting up with delayed stuff, missing stuff, massive dupes, and frequent drought-flood cycles, I can live with the slight delays, although I do think they should do something about it. I have found that by polling at times NOT on the hour or half hour, I get better throughput. Good Day! JSW postmaster@ivgate.uucp
time@ice.com (Tim Endres) (06/15/91)
In article <3303@unocss.unomaha.edu>, fg041@unocss.unomaha.edu (fg041) writes: > I do think they should do something about it. I have found that by polling > at times NOT on the hour or half hour, I get better throughput. I wonder if UUNET has thought of gathering all those UUCICO scheduling files and trying to distribute call time suggestions based on some type of analysis? :-) ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Endres | time@ice.com ICE Engineering | uupsi!ice.com!time 8840 Main Street | Voice FAX Whitmore Lake MI. 48189 | (313) 449 8288 (313) 449 9208
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun13.140345.2680@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: >In article <aeXg44w164w@fdrpc.UUCP> fdr@fdrpc.UUCP (Frank Rockenstein) writes: >> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& >> I am my own node now. >> If you too would like to be your own node, >> mail to node@fdrpc.UUCP >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Frank - > Not to cut you down, but <fdrpc.uucp> is not a valid domain name. >No one will be able to e-mail to you. Do you mean <...!uunet!frdpc!node>? > > - Jiro Nakamura > jiro@shaman.com Jiro - Not to cut you down, but any site using smail and the uucp maps will be able to correctly send mail to node@drpc.UUCP. I do it all the time. Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun12.012806.25633@osh3.OSHA.GOV>, chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > inadequacy of their system is costing me money. Sounds crazy, but maybe > they should drop their rates during peak hours when they know their > system can't give you peak performance. It's not crazy, just backwards. If there is an hour during the day that the load is too high for them to serve, they should *raise* their rates for that time of day. This would let their customers make a clear economic decision to pay the higher rates because they really need access during that hour or move to a different hour when the rates are lower. If the demand for the service is higher than the supply, this is a signal that the price is too low. Prices communicate. It should cost more to cross the George Washington Bridge during peak traffic times and less during times of essentially no traffic. This would move discretionary travel to non-peak times and even out the load some making for less congestion during the peak time. Uunet already experiences some of this in the phone company tolls that are less at some times of day than other times of day. Anyone, including uunet, who has a service that is congested some times in the day and idle other times of the day, should use differential pricing to move some of the load to the less popular times. dan herrick > -- > -----------------------+--------------------------------------------------- > Charles "Chip" Yamasaki| The opinions expressed here are my own and are not > chip@oshcomm.osha.gov | supported or even generally accepted by OSHA. :-) > -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.124131.4910@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >It's not crazy, just backwards. If there is an hour during the day >that the load is too high for them to serve, they should *raise* their >rates for that time of day... If I recall Rick's comments one or two Usenixes ago correctly, he has thought about it, but doesn't feel like explaining over and over and over again why his rates are higher when everyone else's are lower. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) (06/19/91)
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP wrote: > Not to cut you down, but any site using smail and the uucp maps will > be able to correctly send mail to node@drpc.UUCP. I do it all the > time. Not to cut you down (I sense a pattern here), but not every site runs smail, or maintains the maps (e.g. the few thousand Suns out there that're on the Internet that haven't changed their sendmail.cf to accept *.UUCP addresses for systems that aren't direct feeds). -- Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - brendan@cs.widener.edu Widener University in Chester, PA A Bloody Sun-Dec War Zone "Ya know, kitten tacos are really better than anything you've ever tasted before!" "Oh, really." -- Rush Limbaugh
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/19/91)
In article <9106151249.48@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: > Jiro - > > Not to cut you down, but any site using smail and the uucp maps will > be able to correctly send mail to node@drpc.UUCP. I do it all the > time. > > Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP frog!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP Rick (and others) Sigh, I've been appropriately cut down. And yes, I admit (OH NO! NOT THE THUMB SCREWS AGAIN!!!! AIIIEEEEEE), YES.... I USE SENDMAIL...... :-( The devil made me do it. And his name is Steve Jobs, see sendmail is standard on NeXT's. Many apologies to all the *.UUCP sites out there. In contriteness, I should change my sendmail.cf so that foo.uucp gets appropriately translated into uunet!foo..... - jiro nakamura jiro@shaman.COM <--- you should get one of these too! ;-) -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"