Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!amdahl!bnrmtv!connery
From: connery@bnrmtv.UUCP (Glenn Connery)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Ethernet Suffering
Message-ID: <1886@bnrmtv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-May-87 18:36:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: bnrmtv.1886
Posted: Sun May 10 18:36:49 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 13-May-87 00:48:16 EDT
References: <8705070548.AA10268@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <34bd5209.c366@apollo.uucp>
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 16
Summary: Perhaps a misinterpretation...

In article <34bd5209.c366@apollo.uucp>, mishkin@apollo.uucp (Nathaniel Mishkin) writes:
> I was fairly astonished to hear read one basically can run no more than
> (based on the various estimates) 8-15 diskless workstations (of some
> manufacture) on a single ether...  You just don't have these problems
> in a token ring...

Since you are not comparing equivalent systems this kind of interpretation
of the results seems rather unwarranted.  The discussion to date has
pointed out that the Suns are doing paging of the virtual memory over the
Ethernet.  Depending upon the way things are set up this could be a huge
load for the network to handle, regardless of the efficiency of the
access protocol.
-- 

Glenn Connery, Bell Northern Research, Mountain View, CA
{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!connery