dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) (11/11/88)
Has anyone (else) had problems with connections to Telebits,
when calling at low speed? I have heard reports of problems
at 1200 bps, when calling into a Telebit. Recently, I have
had a great deal of problems with another site calling into
my Telebits at 2400 bps - no files longer than a few K would
transfer.
Thanks much!
--
Dave Rand
{pyramid|hoptoad|sun|vsi1}!daver!dlrlmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) (11/11/88)
In article <7307@daver.UUCP> dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) writes: >Has anyone (else) had problems with connections to Telebits, >when calling at low speed? I have heard reports of problems >at 1200 bps, when calling into a Telebit. Recently, I have >had a great deal of problems with another site calling into >my Telebits at 2400 bps - no files longer than a few K would >transfer. I wonder... I was going to post on a similar problem. Maybe they're related. I talk to a site that has severe input speed problems. They are unable to receive and process uucp packets faster than about 150 cps during the day. The TB buffers about 10K of packets, so the time between when my system sends the last packet of a news batch and when the "CY" aknowledging complete reception is consistently over 70 seconds; greater than the timeout in my uucp. The problem didn't occur with the X. files or with short mail messages, since the buffer never filled. The solution I implemented was to increase the timeout value to about 120 seconds. A better solution would be the ability to select the buffer size in the TB; something I requested back when RLS posted his "what would you like to see" article. Btw, the way to tell if this is happening to you is if you see a lot of failures of the "expected C, got FAIL" type. -- Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb%vsi1.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.gov
mrm@sceard.UUCP (M.R.Murphy) (11/11/88)
In article <1205@vsi1.UUCP> lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes: |In article <7307@daver.UUCP> dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) writes: |>Has anyone (else) had problems with connections to Telebits, |>when calling at low speed? I have heard reports of problems |>at 1200 bps, when calling into a Telebit. Recently, I have |>had a great deal of problems with another site calling into |>my Telebits at 2400 bps - no files longer than a few K would |>transfer. | |I wonder... I was going to post on a similar problem. Maybe they're |related. | |I talk to a site that has severe input speed problems. They are unable |to receive and process uucp packets faster than about 150 cps during the |day. The TB buffers about 10K of packets, so the time between when my |system sends the last packet of a news batch and when the "CY" aknowledging |complete reception is consistently over 70 seconds; greater than the |timeout in my uucp. The problem didn't occur with the X. files or with |short mail messages, since the buffer never filled. | |The solution I implemented was to increase the timeout value to about |120 seconds. A better solution would be the ability to select the |buffer size in the TB; something I requested back when RLS posted his |"what would you like to see" article. | |Btw, the way to tell if this is happening to you is if you see a lot |of failures of the "expected C, got FAIL" type. | |-- |Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb%vsi1.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.gov Another problem can be flow control. I set up the tb with no flow control and a locked interface speed and let uucp handle the flow. I'll be happy to email register settings, but they're too boring to post. -- Mike Murphy Sceard Systems, Inc. 544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA 92069 UUCP: {nosc,ucsd}!sceard!mrm INTERNET: mrm%sceard.UUCP@ucsd.ucsd.edu
phile@lgnp1.MASA.COM (Phil Eschallier) (11/12/88)
In article <1205@vsi1.UUCP>, lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes: > In article <7307@daver.UUCP> dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) writes: > >Has anyone (else) had problems with connections to Telebits, > >when calling at low speed? I have heard reports of problems > >at 1200 bps, when calling into a Telebit. Recently, I have > >had a great deal of problems with another site calling into > >my Telebits at 2400 bps - no files longer than a few K would > >transfer. > > I wonder... I was going to post on a similar problem. Maybe they're > related. i don't know if this will help or the question is deeper then i am reading but when i first got my tb+ a few months ago ... i figured the best way to go was to lock the tty port at 9600 (my current serial cards barfs at 19200) by setting S66=1 and let the modem autobaud. this worked quite well at FAST speed but died when doing data transfer at 2400/1200/300 baud! what i did was to always have S66=0 and let the local system talk to tb+ at the appropriate speed (ie: when the modem was connected at 1200 baud, the machine talked to the modem at 1200 baud). i have had absolutely no problems since then. phil eschallier phile@lgnp1 (Sorry -- no fancy signature today!)
lai@vedge.UUCP (David Lai) (11/15/88)
In article <1205@vsi1.UUCP> lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair) writes: >In article <7307@daver.UUCP> dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) writes: >> (description of problems at 1200/2400 baud) > > (other stuff deleted) > >A better solution would be the ability to select the >buffer size in the TB; something I requested back when RLS posted his >"what would you like to see" article. >Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb%vsi1.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.gov In fact this also happens here. I would also like to see something (perhaps automatic) cutting down on buffer sizes when the link speed is low. I beleive that is the problem with using the TB's and a popular networking program... I think it sends a packet into the buffer, expecting that the receiver gets it immediately, and times out before getting an ACK. How about it Telebit, is there a way to shut off the buffer? -- "What is a DJ if he can't scratch?" - Uncle Jamms Army The views expressed are those of the author, and not of Visual Edge, nor Usenet. David Lai (vedge!lai@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu || ...watmath!onfcanim!vedge!lai)