From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Nov 15 09:01:48 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id JAA23738
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:01:48 -0800
Received: from sivka.carrier.kiev.ua (root@sivka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.125.68.130])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA23108
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:57:27 -0800
Received: from elvisti.kiev.ua (uucp@localhost) by sivka.carrier.kiev.ua (Sendmail 8.who.cares/5)
           with UUCP id SAA16161 for hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 18:56:03 +0200
Received: from office.elvisti.kiev.ua (office.elvisti.kiev.ua [193.125.28.33]) by spider2.elvisti.kiev.ua (8.6.12/8.ElVisti) with ESMTP id RAA22588 for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:56:23 +0200
Received: (from stesin@localhost) by office.elvisti.kiev.ua (8.6.12/8.ElVisti) id RAA17559; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:56:22 +0200
From: "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua>
Message-Id: <199511151556.RAA17559@office.elvisti.kiev.ua>
Subject: Re: Is TTYHOG too small? (Re: STARTECH ...550CP chips are Ok for me. )
To: tateoka@pdcd.ilab.toshiba.co.jp (Masamichi Tateoka)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:56:22 +0200 (EET)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199511150828.RAA03853@pdcd-mail.pdcd.ilab.toshiba.co.jp> from "Masamichi Tateoka" at Nov 15, 95 05:28:10 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24alpha5]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1557      
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello Masamichi,

I'm forvarding your message to hackers@freebsd.org mailing list,
'cause I have about nothing to comment on the issue myself (it's
above my today's competence, sorry ); maybe
somebody more knowlegeable will comment?

As for me, I've noticed UUCP 'i' protocol mailfunction on big
packets, too; but in my case it was 2048 bytes packet, and 1024 byte
packets worked Ok, so I relaxed.

Seems that your situation was actively discussed a while ago with
no specific conclusions; I think you could discover something
important.

# Dear, Andrew.
# 
# I found a solution to my problem with UUCP i protocol.
# It's not in the sio.c but tty.h.
# 
# after 2.0.5, clist size limited by c_cbmax.
# and c_cbmax's value from TTYHOG in tty.h.
# but flow control refer to t_hiwat from TTYMAXHIWAT.
# and TTYHOG < TTYMAXHIWAT.
# 
# I think It cause unusual flow control ( by no more clist ).
# 
# Last night, I increased TTYHOG to 4096 in 2.1.0-951104-SNAP and
# recompiled my kernel.
# I tryed UUCP communication, and uucico completed i protocol transfer.
# 
# I don't make clear that TTYHOG > TTYMAXHIWAT is a sufficient condition or
# TTYHOG size is impotant. ( I wanted to sleep last night. ;-)
# But I expected you to make clear immediately you see it.
# So, I mail you now.
# 
#              Masamichi Tateoka
#              tateoka@pdcd.ilab.toshiba.co.jp
#              tateoka@yasai.forus.or.jp (HOME)
# 


-- 

	With best regards -- Andrew Stesin.

	+380 (44) 2760188	+380 (44) 2713457	+380 (44) 2713560

	An undocumented feature is a coding error.