Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!pepsi!phil From: phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Ethernet Factoid Message-ID: <29801@amdcad.AMD.COM> Date: 9 Apr 90 23:01:08 GMT References: <76700190@p.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@amdcad.AMD.COM Reply-To: phil@pepsi.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA Lines: 36 In article <76700190@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: |Five years ago I heard David Redell comment on Ethernet |standardization. Dr. Redell represented Xerox in the |Xerox/Intel/DEC/IEEE 802 standardization process, in 1979. | |He complained that DEC was unreasonable in demanding 10Mb/sec |performance, when Xerox's 3Mb/sec performance would have been |perfectly adequate. | |Who was right? Today, PC's (Compaq systempro) are hitting the 10Mb/s |wall. How far should a standard push the state-of-the-art, given the |costs of doing so, the expected lifetime, and the ability to make a |new standard later? Xerox's system was based on CATV components. The media cost was extremely low. I don't know how long it took DEC's media to reach the point of diminishing returns in terms of economies of scale but certainly at my company we didn't really start to use Ethernet until 1985 and at least part of that was due to cost. DEC made things more expensive in terms of demanding higher speed *and* longer range. This is why the yellow coax is so thick and expensive. It seems to me that repeaters and bridges are a much more attractive solution. The thin-net stuff seems reasonable enough, however. Even if Compaq systempros are reaching a limit, that doesn't mean every PC needs FDDI. Multiple thin-nets to systempros seems like a good solution, especially if you are using twisted pair Ethernet where you effectively have multiple nets anyway, as long as your systempro can be close to the wire closet. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil The War on Drugs is the modern day Inquisition.