Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!fostel
From: fostel@ncsu.UUCP (Gary Fostel)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Network in-a Box
Message-ID: <2570@ncsu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Apr-84 14:53:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ncsu.2570
Posted: Thu Apr 26 14:53:29 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Apr-84 06:44:15 EST
Organization: N.C. State University, Raleigh
Lines: 31


    Someone recently asked about the relative advantages of putting a micro
    on every desk versus putting a dozen (or so) micros into a single box
    thinking to save money that way.  "Network In a Box" is one name which
    has been coined for these, and a nice glossy intro article in a rag called
    High Technology talks about who makes them and some numbers and such.  I
    recall it being an issue in Late Fall or Winter, a few months back.

    It seems that there are two primary differences as far as cost effectiveness
    is concerned: the packaging of the NIAB must be lower since the cabinet
    powersupply and such can be done more cheaply.  (And there's always    
    Grosches Law).  On the other hand, there will be more costs for the cabling
    to interconnect the (presumably) remote workstations.  It seems that the
    NIAB will win if the workstations are all close together, but should start
    to lose (all things equal) as the distances increase.

    Now, IF you were intending a high perf LAN to interconnect the seperate
    processors, you may find yourself paying the price for cabling as well as
    the extra packaging costs.  But recall, if the processor and memory are
    remote from the screen, its is going to take a lot of bandwidth out of your
    LAN to support bit mapped screens.  The result will be LANS carrying largely
    screen re-fresh data rather than FTP, file server etc etc.  Not immediately
    obvious which will lead to higher bandwidth requirements, tho it seems that
    a blunt screen refresh could be very high bandwidth indeed for bit-mapping.
    Comparable to video?  The bandwidth can come down if the remote display
    is smart and the NIAB uses some compression techniques.  But my guess is
    that RS-232 at 9600 is what the available NIAB's use.  Phone lines are
    maybe good enough for that up to a point. 

    Of course maintenance and that stuff is much easier with the NIAB.
    ----gary----