[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Various Taylor hackings



(I've been too sick to do any work lately, so sorry if I'm late
here as well)

> why?  the above is what i did on 1.03, still works here every day...
>i can type `uucico -ssomebox' and it forks itself in background like any
>other daemon.
>
>>  This will reduce the memory 
>> fragmentation problems as well.
>
> no thats a different reason, not much to do with tfork.  (and in fact
>i'm hacking just this in mint now, wait for the diffs... ;)

Hmm. I must be misunderstanding something here - anyway, how does init
do this?

>> That's an issue - although the timeouts have been reasonably effective.
>
> and then theres also DTR on modem2, or sending breaks...

I tell a lie, actually, I don't have any timeouts or carrier detection,
big boo-hoo.  Have to fix that one I guess.

> is that the minix one?  does it have a real history at least?  i had a
>(non-mint) port of mnews first, until i went for cnews-xt... :)

Hmm, I tried to find cnews, to no avail.  This is ex-minix, now linux 
and coherent.

> well the tty situation hasn't improved much yet...  and i guess
>for the i protocol to get decent thruput we still need the hacks
>in fastread+fastwrite, i already needed them for g... :(

Nope, not at all... I get better than 1600cps using the g-proto with 
uucico configured to use stdio. (modem2, 38k4 fixed, v42/v42bis modem)
(similar figures with the i-proto)

And with that running, you get a very occasional lurch (you can type
through it without bothering) when uucico goes to the disk.  I've built
wnews with that running, and the throughput status don't show it at all.

> i have an old hack of smail 2.5, should be enough for a small uucp site...
>even can do batched-SMTP. :)

Biggest problem I can see with smail2.5 is that it's map-based, correct?

>	Juergen


-- 
# mike smith : miff@apanix.apana.org.au - Silicon grease monkey        #
# "The question 'why are the fundamental laws of nature mathematical'  #
# then invites the trivial response 'because we define as fundamental  #
# those laws which are mathematical'". Paul Davies, _The_Mind_of_God_. #