Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!hc!hi!cyrus
From: cyrus@hi.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: ethernet terminal servers
Message-ID: <6161@hi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-May-87 19:16:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: hi.6161
Posted: Tue May  5 19:16:41 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 7-May-87 03:04:35 EDT
References: <45800001@uicsrd>
Reply-To: cyrus@hi.UUCP (Tait Cyrus)
Organization: U. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 31

In article <45800001@uicsrd> kai@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>How do different Ethernet terminal servers affect network performance,
>user-perceived responce time (especially for editing), network
>management, and the company bank statement?

Ethernet terminal servers are great.  They give users access to
every computer that is on the net (assuming that they talk to
correct protocol).  A problem thought is that they add A LOT
of little packets to the net.  For instance we have several
Bridge tcp/ip terminal servers.  The problem is that for every
character the user types, a packet is sent.  Since the minimum
ethernet packet size is 64 bytes, there is A LOT of overhead.
Now that is not to say that there isn't a way to get the Bridge
terminal server to put more data into a packet, it is just that
you can expect a lot of minimum sized packets flying around
the net.  We have one section of our local net that has
3 14 port Bridges on it.  Although there are a lot of packets
moving around, we are only at about 10-15% of the total bandwidth.
Hope this helps.

-- 
    @__________@    W. Tait Cyrus   (505) 277-0806
   /|         /|    University of New Mexico
  / |        / |    Dept of EECE - Hypercube Project
 @__|_______@  |    Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
 |  |       |  |
 |  |  hc   |  |    e-mail:
 |  @.......|..@       cyrus@hc.dspo.gov or cyrus@hc.arpa or
 | /        | /        {gatech|ucbvax|convex}!unmvax!hi!cyrus
 @/_________@/