jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/19/91)
In case anyone didn't notice, the Ithaca POP for PSI opened with 2 measly
v.32 lines.... I'm using them right now. It is my hopes that more people
with Telebits will join up in Ithaca, and bully PSI into getting a proper
PEP line there. :-)
On another vein, what kinds of throughput are people getting
with PSI's PEP lines? UUNET only gets me about 900-100 cps (character-bytes
per second). Since UUPSI goes through a telnet channel (apparently) from
the POP to PSI central, I don't imagine they get wonderful response
times (sigh, c'est la vie).
- Jiro Nakamura
jiro@shaman.com
--
Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com
Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data
"Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"mark@drd.com (Mark Lawrence) (06/19/91)
Totally unrelated whatsover to PSI, POP and PEP, did anybody else notice Jim Isaak's delightful pun in his snitch report in the latest issue of ;login:? Talking about the POSIX Platform Environment Profile, Jim says (obstensibly with a straight face): "...In effect, PEP will blaze the trail for other more complex profile tasks..." uh, huh. -- mark@drd.com mark@jnoc.go.jp $B!J%^!<%/!&%i%l%s%9!K(B Nihil novum sub solem
time@ice.com (Tim Endres) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun19.015353.717@shaman.com>, jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > In case anyone didn't notice, the Ithaca POP for PSI opened with 2 measly > v.32 lines.... I'm using them right now. It is my hopes that more people > with Telebits will join up in Ithaca, and bully PSI into getting a proper > PEP line there. :-) It should be noted that PSI has officially stated that they are moving away from *new* PEP installations, and focusing on V.32. In my miserable opinion, I think this is a mistake. > On another vein, what kinds of throughput are people getting > with PSI's PEP lines? UUNET only gets me about 900-100 cps (character-bytes > per second). Since UUPSI goes through a telnet channel (apparently) from > the POP to PSI central, I don't imagine they get wonderful response > times (sigh, c'est la vie). The best throughput I think I have *ever* seen from a T2500 (without compression, since it was batched compressed news) is about 1330 cps. I ordinarily see something on the order of 1100 cps daily. I don't think you will ever see over 1400. Anyone seen better? tim. ------------------------------------------------------------- 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
abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) (06/20/91)
A company for whom I do consulting uses the NYC POP with PEP. Our end of the connection is sometimes noisy, but when that's OK, we get around 900-1300 cps, depending on life, the universe, etc. This is with compression disabled on the Telebits. ~~~Steve -- /************************************************* * *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu * **************************************************/ #include <std/dumquote.h> #include <std/disclaimer.h>
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.015353.717@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > >In case anyone didn't notice, the Ithaca POP for PSI opened with 2 measly >v.32 lines.... As "advertised" in numbers-info@psi.com well in advance and implemented today there are two LowSpeed (300/1200/2400) dialups and two HighSpeed (V.32, 19.2kbps DTE) dialups in Ithaca. While this is less than the 25 dialups in NewYorkCity, Ithaca is a smaller city after all.... >I'm using them right now. It is my hopes that more people >with Telebits will join up in Ithaca, and bully PSI into getting a proper >PEP line there. :-) There is little differnce between PEP and V.32 signalling related to performance on local phone lines. Given that PEP is inferior technology for interactive applications and SLIP/PPP, it will take more than public or private bullying. > On another vein, what kinds of throughput are people getting >with PSI's PEP lines? UUNET only gets me about 900-100 cps (character-bytes >per second). Since UUPSI goes through a telnet channel (apparently) from >the POP to PSI central, I don't imagine they get wonderful response >times (sigh, c'est la vie). > You are not using a telnet channel you are using a TCP Stream on the official UUCP port (540). Throughput is related to: - signalling - "network" latency +/- spoofing issues - bandwidth of "smallest" hop within a subnet - io of source host - io of destination host All (save for signalling) are effectively non-deterministic. Given that they are non-deterministic (and a few other factors) PSI's services are flat-fee. Marty
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (06/20/91)
> >It should be noted that PSI has officially stated that they are moving >away from *new* PEP installations, and focusing on V.32. >In my miserable opinion, I think this is a mistake. > "New PEP installations" means "new POPs", additional PEPs are and will be added to current PEP rotaries in places like NY, Reston, SantaClara etc... If the ONLY consideration is marketing into an installed base of UUCP'ers than I would concur with you. If you consider issues such as - price/performance - professional high quality rack mount modem issues (vs standalone) - PEP latency - SLIP/PPP market - mass market availability of V.32 - rapidly developing new markets for "electronic mail" and other things Then you can come to different conclusions - your mileage may vary as they say.... PEP has multiple technical losses, multiple marketing losses and one marketing win. [Now Telebit MODEMS via UUCP spoofing get another technical win under certain circumstances.] Then there is V.32bis.... Marty
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.015353.717@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > In case anyone didn't notice, the Ithaca POP for PSI opened with 2 measly > v.32 lines.... I'm using them right now. It is my hopes that more people > with Telebits will join up in Ithaca, and bully PSI into getting a proper > PEP line there. :-) Ditto for Houston. PSI seems to have decided that PEP is for the birds... they're not only not buying PEP modems, they refuse to move a few around to balance out the load. This is ungood. Come on, surely some of those places with bundles of PEP POPs can spare one for little old Houston...? -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/20/91)
In article <1CE00001.ij05gb@tbomb.ice.com> time@ice.com (Tim Endres) writes: > It should be noted that PSI has officially stated that they are moving > away from *new* PEP installations, and focusing on V.32. > In my miserable opinion, I think this is a mistake. Talking about v32 (which is what I talk to the Ithaca POP with) what kinds of modems are they using? I assume they have standardized their modems across the board. I can use up to v32/MNP4 with my T2500, but I can't seem to kick in v42/v42bis. Has anyone connected with anything higher than this? Could you be so kind as to send me your register settings (properly decoded if non-Telebit?)? When I try to use MNP5, then the connection ends up in garbage. Interesting.... A quick dial-up of local v32 sites indicates that both MNP5 and v42/42bis do work on the T2500 (revision 7.03). I'd really like to use V42/V42bis over MNP. Does anyone know if PSI's modems are enabled for this? - Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com ps. If and when PSI starts using v.32bis and if and when Telebit offers a v32bis upgrade to my 1/2 year old T2500....... -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"
wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S. Rupprecht) (06/20/91)
time@ice.com (Tim Endres) writes: >The best throughput I think I have *ever* seen from a T2500 (without >compression, since it was batched compressed news) is about 1330 cps. >I ordinarily see something on the order of 1100 cps daily. >I don't think you will ever see over 1400. Anyone seen better? I find that there is a big difference between talking to various types of machines. When I talk to a 3b2/400 (aka. the pig in an ugly box), all I get is ~1000 bps. Talking from a Sparc SLC to a Sparc SLC I regularly get >1400 bps. SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:30:45) [cua0] -> 40392 / 26.200 secs, 1541 bytes/sec SysV368!news S (6/18-23:56:40) [ttya] -> 50684 / 34.000 secs, 1490 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:45:00) [cua0] -> 72727 / 48.960 secs, 1485 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:17:17) [cua0] -> 74067 / 50.060 secs, 1479 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:16:19) [cua0] -> 86215 / 58.510 secs, 1473 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:27:42) [cua0] -> 94789 / 64.480 secs, 1470 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:28:55) [cua0] -> 94499 / 64.250 secs, 1470 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:13:56) [cua0] -> 84943 / 57.800 secs, 1469 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:12:49) [cua0] -> 99385 / 67.780 secs, 1466 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:32:02) [cua0] -> 98805 / 67.370 secs, 1466 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:15:12) [cua0] -> 99235 / 67.710 secs, 1465 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:44:04) [cua0] -> 96669 / 65.950 secs, 1465 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:47:30) [cua0] -> 99241 / 67.700 secs, 1465 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:30:10) [cua0] -> 98615 / 67.320 secs, 1464 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:42:50) [cua0] -> 97945 / 66.890 secs, 1464 bytes/sec SparcSLC!news M (6/19-1:46:14) [cua0] -> 95865 / 65.440 secs, 1464 bytes/sec SysV368!news S (6/18-23:57:26) [ttya] -> 54420 / 37.300 secs, 1458 bytes/sec -wolfgang -- Wolfgang Rupprecht wolfgang@wsrcc.com (or) uunet!wsrcc!wolfgang Snail Mail Address: Box 6524, Alexandria, VA 22306-0524
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.174421.7181@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: > There is little differnce between PEP and V.32 signalling related > to performance on local phone lines. Given that PEP is inferior > technology for interactive applications and SLIP/PPP, it will > take more than public or private bullying. It's got nothing to do with bullying. There are many reasons for people to be using the PEP protocol. That may be all they have, for example. Or they may be calling from an exchange with older equipment (particularly common in non-Bell areas) or through a PBX so PEP does provide better performance on their lines. In either case, it would take additional expenditures (buying modems or renting a direct or FX line from the phone company) to use V.32 effectively After all, if price was no object we would still be using UUNET. Don't forget that's PSI's main edge over UUNET/Alternet. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/20/91)
In article <1991Jun19.175922.8524@uu.psi.com> schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) writes: > If the ONLY consideration is marketing into an installed base of > UUCP'ers than I would concur with you. I wouldn't say it's your only consideration, but I can't see why it shouldn't be *a* consideration. That's who your original customers were, after all. > - price/performance > - professional high quality rack mount modem issues (vs standalone) > - PEP latency > - SLIP/PPP market > - mass market availability of V.32 > - rapidly developing new markets for "electronic mail" and other things On the other hand, you have: - Installed Base - UUCP spoofing - "poor" exchanges (for example, Sugarland Telephone) - PBXes What would be your cost for transferring *one* TB on Houston? -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
time@ice.com (Tim Endres) (06/21/91)
In article <VF1CZ97@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > It's got nothing to do with bullying. There are many reasons for people > to be using the PEP protocol. That may be all they have, for example. Or > they may be calling from an exchange with older equipment (particularly > common in non-Bell areas) or through a PBX so PEP does provide better > performance on their lines. Some of our customers have reported that PEP works **far** better than V.32 for overseas connections. ------------------------------------------------------------- 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
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (06/21/91)
In article <1CE00001.insarr@tbomb.ice.com> time@ice.com writes: > Some of our customers have reported that PEP works **far** better > than V.32 for overseas connections. Definitely. For bad lines, PEP is so much more reliable that we'd have been insane to go with any other high speed standard. We routinely commuinicate with a number of overseas sites with a high percentage of successful calls. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"