Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!SEISMO.CSS.GOV!rick
From: rick@SEISMO.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Poor performance related to egp?
Message-ID: <8611032000.AA07078@beno.CSS.GOV>
Date: Mon, 3-Nov-86 15:00:29 EST
Article-I.D.: beno.8611032000.AA07078
Posted: Mon Nov  3 15:00:29 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Nov-86 03:29:13 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 32
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


Let me see if I have this correct. Based on the letters I have received:

	There is a major problem with GGP.
	This has been known for a long time.
	There is no plan to fix it in the forseeable future.
	This problem "at most" doubles the load on the arpanet.

Can anyone explain why this doesn't warrant immediate attention?

If someone told me there was a kernel bug that "at most" wasted 50% of
my CPU, I'd be quite concerned about it. I wouldn't wait for the next
hardware release and hope it was fixed then.

Observation indicates a 10 to 1 degradation in performance, which is
not what I would expect from doubling the load.

There seems to be some belief that the BBN Butterfly will be the salvation
of the world. I hope the Butterfly being considered is a lot different from
the Butterfly sitting about 25 feet from me (css-gateway 10.2.0.25). This
particular Butterfly is one of the most unreliable things I have
ever seen. It often needs to be MANUALLY (i.e. they call me up) rebooted
several times per day. 

Waiting for a solution based on the Butterfly seems quite foolish.
Especially when people are forced to install their own leased lines because
the ARPANET performance is unacceptable. (We already have 2. I'm sure there
are many others. I find it especially ironic that our DARPA project manager can
not use the ARPANET to access our machine (unaceptable performance), but
has to use a leased line)

---rick