Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!cliff
From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: IBM VM TCP/IP performance (part 2) revised
Message-ID: <1990Sep19.174521.24474@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 90 17:45:21 GMT
References: <9009190321.AA14869@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Reply-To: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 34


In article <9009190321.AA14869@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
09998WAS%MSU@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU ("Bill.Simpson") writes:
|> For those of you who were wondering what in the world Doug Nelson's
|> spiteful message was referring to, here is the old message, revised
|> by the helpful comments sent privately (thanks all).  I had given up
|> on the thread, but it seems the issue has more life than I thought!
|> 
|> This benchmark was conducted over the noisiest line I know of, at slow

On this list we've seen all this before.  We're still waiting for you 
to substantiate your accusations.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the product Bill.Simpson so
gratuitously slams, his "benchmarks" show one thing unambiguously:

	Data transfer rates from nis.nsf.net are low.

Wow.

In his postings Bill.Simpson has said that he has proven that this is
due to the software running on nis.nsf.net--specifically as opposed to
the configuration of the software and hardware on that machine (which he
admits he knows nothing about).  He has never publically listed these
failings, nor the alleged host requirements the sw fails to meet.

I've asked him twice in private mail what specific software failings he 
has found, and several others have asked him this publically, and he has
never responded.  Perhaps he has found flaws, perhaps not.  It's looking
like we'll never know.

	Cliff Frost			<cliff@Berkeley.EDU>
	Central Computing Services
	UC Berkeley