Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!AFWAL-AAA.ARPA!west%etd2.DECnet From: west%etd2.DECnet@AFWAL-AAA.ARPA ("ETD2::WEST") Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: I forget Message-ID: <8711230852.AA26487@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 17-Nov-87 09:09:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8711230852.AA26487 Posted: Tue Nov 17 09:09:00 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 26-Nov-87 02:26:57 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: "ETD2::WEST" Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 79 From: AVLAB::MAILER 17-NOV-1987 00:17 To: ETD1::WEST Subj: DDN Mail Message Return-Path: <@KL.SRI.COM:Mailer@NMFECC.ARPA> Received: from KL.SRI.COM by afwal-aaa.arpa ; 16 Nov 87 23:14:47 EDT Received: from NMFECC.ARPA by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Mon 16 Nov 87 21:15:20-PST Received: from nmfecc.arpa by ccc.mfenet with Tell via MfeNet ; Mon, 16 Nov 87 21:15:49 PST Date: 15 Nov 87 19:06:00 EDT From: Mailer@NMFECC.ARPA Message-Id: <871116211550.02c@NMFECC.ARPA> Subject: Returned/Rejected MFENET mail To: west%etd1.decnet%afwal-aaa.arpa@KL.SRI.COM Comment: reason for return -- Comment: failed Address was JOEL@UCE.MFENET Start of returned message From: west%etd1.decnet%afwal-aaa.arpa@ccc.mfenet Subject: As stated Date: 15 Nov 87 19:06:00 EDT Received: from KL.SRI.COM by NMFECC.ARPA with INTERNET ; Mon, 16 Nov 87 21:15:07 PST Received: from afwal-aaa.arpa by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Sun 15 Nov 87 16:13:43-PST To: "info-vax" Reply-To: "ETD1::WEST" From: AVLAB::MAILER 14-NOV-1987 22:46 To: ETD1::WEST Subj: DDN Mail Message Return-Path: <@KL.SRI.COM:Mail_System%UCE.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA> Received: from KL.SRI.COM by afwal-aaa.arpa ; 14 Nov 87 21:45:33 EDT Received: from NMFECC.ARPA by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Sat 14 Nov 87 19:45:41-PST Received: from uce.mfenet by ccc.mfenet with Tell via MfeNet ; Sat, 14 Nov 87 19:45:41 PST Date: 12 Nov 87 14:46:00 EDT From: Mail_System%UCE.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA Message-Id: <871114194542.0ln@NMFECC.ARPA> Subject: Returned/Rejected MFENET mail To: west%etd1.decnet%afwal-aaa.arpa@KL.SRI.COM Comment: Failed Address was JOEL@UCE.MFENET Start of returned message From: west%etd1.decnet%afwal-aaa.arpa@ccc.mfenet Subject: LAT vs. any other kind of terminal connection Date: 12 Nov 87 14:46:00 EDT Received: from KL.SRI.COM by NMFECC.ARPA with INTERNET ; Sat, 14 Nov 87 19:44:35 PST Received: from afwal-aaa.arpa by KL.SRI.COM with TCP; Thu 12 Nov 87 11:55:49-PST To: "info-vax" Reply-To: "ETD1::WEST" At the Air Force Avionics Lab, we have an Ethernet backbone with (at least) 12 VAX and lots of graphics workstations attached. This backbone runs DECnet, LAT, CALMAnet, TCP/IP and more. This backbone serves AT LEAST 40 and maybe more highly utilized terminal servers (DECserver 100 and 200's.) This is 320 terminals and PC's connected by LAT, there are also several (10-15) devices connected by reverse LAT on DS200's...FOM's etc. My point...the net is busy but not strained. There is NO terminal I/O degredation...and this technique beats using DZ-11's hands down for off loading processing. A performance audit showed that 15% of the CPU was being spent handling interrupts (from DZ-11's). After getting rid of the DZ's and going to LAT, the time spent in interrupt was .LT. 2%. Over 10% of the VAX cpu time was returned to the users for the price of an upgrade which is justifiable in terms of convenience (for distributed connect capability) alone! Mike West Air Force Avionics Lab AFWAL/AADE WPAFB, OH 45433 west%etd1.decnet@afwal-aaa.arpa ------