Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:4793 comp.protocols.nfs:1229 comp.dcom.lans:5813
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!ucivax!milne
From: milne@ics.uci.edu (Alastair Milne)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Windows 3.0 and PC-NFS?????
Keywords: Software for pcnfs
Message-ID: <26DE1AC6.29000@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 90 08:07:34 GMT
References: <926@massey.ac.nz> <1990Aug28.141149.2618@technet.uucp> <1990Aug30.001504.21331@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> <26DC8A1E.18344@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 39

In <26DC8A1E.18344@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> beame@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Carl Beame) writes:


>	1) Many ethernet adaptors use shared memory. This memory MUST be
>	   listed in the EMMexclude line in system.ini. (The Excelan card
>	   uses shared memory).

    Oops!  Re my last posting, this raises a good point.  Yes, I have
    indicated in my CONFIG.SYS memory areas that must be left alone for 
    the WD8003E/A adapter to work.  In other situations, I've found that 
    permitting this area to be overwritten is one of the surest ways of 
    causing bizarre crashes of all descriptions.

    And I don't bother with EMS under windows, or anywhere else for that 
    matter.  An incredible nuisance to configure, and it seldom solves the
    problems I wanted it for anyway.

>	2) When running windows in protected mode, hardware interrupts to
>	   real code are delayed and the PC is not as fast in removing 
>	   packets from the adaptors. With BWNFS, it is sometimes required
>	   to reduce the read size when running Windows 3.0 to 2048 from
>	   4096 (or 8192 for the Excelan Card).

    Another good point.  How do the various ethernet cards compare for
    memory-communications speed?  The WD card double-ports a region of 
    memory, making its access very fast.  What about Excelan, or
    Ungermann-Bass, or 3Com?  If they're using CPU ports, they we have a 
    different story.

    I have no benchmarks for PC-NFS file access with or without Windows 3,
    but my impression is that Windows slows everything down anyway.
    Frankly, a number of aspects of Window 3 make me appreciate the 
    Mac's Multifinder all the more!  It seems much smoother and easier to
    handle.
    (But I'm willing to keep trying, especially if it will gain me the use of
    physical memory I have on the 80.)


    Alastair Milne