Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!mveao
From: mveao@cbnews.ATT.COM (eric.a.olson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: STARLAN on AT&T 3B2/400 and 386
Message-ID: <11791@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 29 Nov 89 04:04:18 GMT
References: <1989Nov27.224422.16915@mccc.uucp>
Reply-To: mveao@cbnews.ATT.COM (eric.a.olson,54242,wi,1f018,508 374 5626)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 68

In article <1989Nov27.224422.16915@mccc.uucp> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes:
>In article <1989Nov22.160616.10272@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>=In article <1989Nov21.134118.11677@nebulus> root@nebulus (Dennis S. Breckenridge) writes:
>=>root@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) writes:
>=>>Is there a need to change the software on the 3B2s?  
>=
>=>No not at all!
>=
>=Umm... As far as I know, release 1.x of the starlan drivers (which is
>=what he has on the 3b2) will *not* talk to 3.x (which is all that you
>=can get for the 386).  They can co-exist on the same wire and there
>=is a software-bridge product available, but to use rfs he's going to
>=have to upgrade to release 3.2 starlan on the 3B2.
>=
>=Les Mikesell
>=  les@chinet.chi.il.us
>
>Oh, oh!  Will "he" have to upgrade anything else?  Does RFS/Starlan 3.2
>run on SVR3.1, for example?
>
>Thanks,
>Pete
    
    Perhaps I can clear (or further muddy) the waters here.
    I've been a big fan of Starlan in our lab since it first came out,
    tying our half-dozen 3B1s to 3B2s and RFSing between the 3B2s
    (till our 3B2s started to get old (they ran for three or so
    years just *fine* with absolutely no maintenance) and we went
    to the local computer center for a support contract and they
    told us that RFS in starlan 1.x was buggy and a terrible cpu 
    load and that we really didn't want it as much as we thought we 
    did and that besides, they couldn't support it and provide the 
    uptime we would naturally expect from them on such a system)...

    Now we have two Starlan networks - starlan-10 between a dozen or
    so 386s and starlan-1 between the 3B2s and 3B1s.  And a Hub unit...
    and a 10 to 1 bridge...  Then we found we needed an AUI (remember,
    we got this all in parts as they first came out, and you don't 
    find out all that you need when you order by COMCODE rather than
    PEC, but when they first came out, there wasn't a PEC to order...)

    I finally bridged the two networks and found that the NAUs could
    see the ones on the other network by address, but not by symbolic name;
    and cu/uucp of course couldn't find them.  Since it took a few months
    to get all these parts (the AUI took 8 weeks alone), I was afraid
    I wouldn't be able to get support to find the problem, but tried
    anyways...apparently something was still under warranty, because
    I *did* get helped.

    Here is what they said:
	You must have StarGROUP software 3.1 or better on the 3B2s
	in order to talk to Starlan-10 from Starlan.  Starlan is
	ISO(?), while Starlan-10 is OSI.

	You can run StarGROUP software on SVR3.1 and use cu/uucp; but 
	you will not be able to run a DOS server without SVR3.2.  

	The StarGROUP manuals agree with this restriction.
	I didn't think to ask the hotline about RFS with SVR3.1;
	the StarGROUP manual I just received with the StarGROUP
	software doesn't specifically disallow as it does for the DOS server.

    A local information source added that the SVR3.2 upgrade for the
    /400s and /600s will mean an expensive motherboard upgrade.
    
    I haven't installed StarGROUP on the 3b2/600 yet as it will 
    prevent it from talking to the 3b2/400s, some of which are 
    still running DOS servers and can't yet be upgraded.