Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!swb From: swb@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Scott Brim) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Milking machine performance/function Message-ID: <1612@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 1-Dec-86 15:51:29 EST Article-I.D.: batcompu.1612 Posted: Mon Dec 1 15:51:29 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Dec-86 04:29:37 EST Reply-To: swb@batcomputer.UUCP (Scott Brim) Distribution: na Organization: Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY Lines: 31 Thanks to all the mail about terminal servers recently, I feel educated about using terminal servers on ethernets. How about the other direction though ("milking machines")? I'm talking about a situation where you TELNET to this box and it produces asynch out the backend to connect to hosts that don't support TCP/IP, or support it in a limited way. Nice user functions aren't so important in this mode, but reliability, throughput, and routing functionality become critical. Once again the only contenders I know of are Bridge, Cisco, and Encore. Is anyone using terminal servers in this mode? What's REAL throughput like, these days, coming **from** the "terminal" (which in this case is the host)?? I believe these boxes have been engineered for high throughput **to** the terminal (which in my case is the host). How do they do if you spew characters at them from the RS232 ports? Do they crash? Stagger? Drop things on the floor? Sail smoothly through it? Does Bridge understand UDP RIP yet? (I suspect Cisco still only uses its own proprietary routing protocol.) On any of these boxes, is there any problem with **completely** turning off things like welcoming banners, flow control, etc.? Thanks ... Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott W. Brim swb@devvax.tn.cornell.edu Cornell University Theory Center {decvax,ihnp4}!cornell!swb 265 Olin Hall bitnet: swb@crnlcs Ithaca, NY 14853 607-255-9392