Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!anise!salt.acc.com!lars From: lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: A Comparison of Commerical RPC Protocols Keywords: RPC Apollo Sun Netwise Message-ID: <951@anise.acc.com> Date: 20 Jul 89 05:47:09 GMT References: <6567@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM> Sender: news@anise.acc.com Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California Lines: 28 In article <6567@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM> on comp.misc joshua@Atherton.COM (Flame Bait) writes in a long, worthwhile technical review article comparing 4 different RPC protocols: Second, consider the two TCP based systems [vendor names omitted]: Again, since both use the same communications layer they should have the same speed. One explanation for [vendor A]'s slower performance, is data conversion (which is fully discussed below in "Data Representation"). Briefly, [vendor A] must translate all data into a standard format (ASN.1). [vendor B] does too; however, [vendor] uses MC68000 as their standard data format. So, in fact, [vendor B] did no data conversion, while [vendor A] did twice: from MC68000 format to ASN.1 and back. [I have omitted vendor names to comply with the spirit of Joshua's copyright notice.] You now have a sense of why those of us who have been around long enough to remember when 1 MIPS was a campus mainframe are so opposed to the parking garage sized ISO/OSI protocol stacks. OSI mandates an ASN.1 presentation layer, while TCP/IP usually punts this by specifying a standard representation equal to the natural representation on either a VAX or an MC68K or soon to be iAPX386. This ensures that some group of users get an efficient implementation, while the ISO model guarantees equal and equally bad performance for all. / Lars Poulsen (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!