Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!apollo!mishkin
From: mishkin@apollo.uucp (Nathaniel Mishkin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Ethernet Suffering
Message-ID: <34cc3c36.c366@apollo.uucp>
Date: Mon, 11-May-87 10:00:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: apollo.34cc3c36.c366
Posted: Mon May 11 10:00:00 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 13-May-87 02:34:46 EDT
References: <8705070548.AA10268@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <34bd5209.c366@apollo.uucp> <6603@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: mishkin@apollo.UUCP (Nathaniel Mishkin)
Distribution: world
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA
Lines: 37

In article <6603@mimsy.UUCP> mark@mimsy.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes:
>In article <34bd5209.c366@apollo.uucp> mishkin@apollo.UUCP (Nathaniel Mishkin) writes:
>>...I think the recent discussion
>>in this group highlights some of the virtues of token ring networks.
>>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. 
>
>I think this is a misinterpretation of the comments.  I have seen
>Apollo networks exhibiting extremely poor performance when too many
>diskless nodes were accessing a single server.

I think there's some confusion here:  *I* was not talking about the number
of diskless workstations that could be booted off a single server.  Maybe
other people were.  It seemed that people were talking about the number
of diskless workstations that could be on a single local network (e.g.
ether or ring).

Further, let me make it clear that when I said I gave the range "8-15"
I was merely quoting the numbers that had appeared in the earlier articles
to which I was following up.  (I.e. I should not be considered an authority
on the performance characteristics of other manufacturer's workstations :)
Unless I was misreading, these quotes were from articles that seemed
to be discussing the number of diskless workstations per ether, not per
disked server.  I'll leave it to the real authorities to clear things up.

>Another angle: there are lots of reasons why performance could be different
>between these two systems.  It is premature to point the finger at the
>0/1 networking levels without more information.

Fair enough.  I was just trying to provide some more information that I thought
was relevant.
-- 
                    -- Nat Mishkin
                       Apollo Computer Inc.
                       Chelmsford, MA
                       {wanginst,yale,mit-eddie}!apollo!mishkin