Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpcc05!hpyhde1!hpycla!hpcuhc!dhepner
From: dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Performance of LAN server vs. mux's?
Message-ID: <530030@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com>
Date: 7 Mar 91 20:33:56 GMT
References: <29280002@teecs.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 19

From: belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin)

>a TCP/IP terminal
>server and a LAN card as a means of attaching terminals to a 9000/800-series
>machine (825 or 835):

>2. Can someone give me some idea of how this configuration compares to
>   normal HP MUX (6-port) connections, in terms of performance?

It depends on your application, but the generally correct answer
is that the MUX solution offers significantly better performance.

The exceptions are cases where there are a lot of little used
terminals, and cases where the TCP traffic is bundled into
TCP packets containing far more than a single character.

MUX-16s (16 port muxes) may offer a better solution.

Dan Hepner