Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!SKIDMORE.BITNET!MANAGER From: MANAGER@SKIDMORE.BITNET (Leo Geoffrion) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: RE: Pacer vs. Alisa Message-ID: Date: 15 Apr 88 12:13:00 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 61 bmh%demon.siemens.com@princeton.edu writes: >There is a comparison of AlisaTalk, PacerShare, and CommUnity in Digital >Review (February 8, 1988) on p70. The comparisons show that the Pacer is >either equal or faster than the other two using either EtherTalk or FastPath. >A disadvantage of Alisa is that it does not maintain HFS. >Experience here has been with PacerLink which needed a couple of minor >revisions > before it was working as promised. Our PacerLink ties Ultrix on a Vax8600 to >Appletalk. The edition of Alisa reviewed in that magazine is the old version which was not HFS compatible. At DEXPO, they were demonstrating their new version which is fully AppleShare & HFS compatible. This version is in Beta testing and is supposted to be shipping in May or June according to the reps' at DEXPO. We've been trying to decide between the two products for a while now, too. Based on the literature that we've seen, we are leaning toward Alisa (the new version...) for the following reasons: 1. It fully implements AppleShare for VMS, while Pacer uses proprietary code. We fear that adopting Pacer may hurt us as other companies begin to implement Appleshare/VMS gateways. Since AS for VMS is being promoted by Apple as a standard format, I'd prefer to go with standards. 2. Alisa uses a single VMS process to handle all file service requests, while Pacer creates a new process for each connection. With a community of about 25 Mac's on our network, I'm not eager to see 25 or more VMS processes consuming memory and other resources -- particulary since our VAX computers are the older models that don't have lots of capacity. Besides which, as any VMS system manager will attest, VMS does a poor job of creating and winding down processes. I'm not eager to incur that overhead needlessly. 3. Pacer's pricing is out of sight. Since they set their fees based on the number of simultaneous users, it gets expensive very very fast. Back in the days, when Pacer was mainly a file transfer package, a per-user rate was tolerable since only a minority of users would be uploading simultaneously. On the other hand, when doing file service, users are more likely to link up and stay attached all day. Then, I can easily have 30+ simultaneous users, Alisa's flat fee seems more realistic for file service where many users stay attached for long periods. During those periods, most processing is local to the Mac, with occasional file requests to the VAX as documents are saved, etc. Standard disclosure: I don't get paid by Alisa or Pacer to say these things. Our impressions are based on discussions with sales rep's and brief reviews at trade shows. We have not installed wither package at our site. We hope to do so later this summer, however. =================================================================== Leo D. Geoffrion BITNET: MANAGER@SKIDMORE.BITNET Associate Director for NYNEX: (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2628 Academic Computing Skidmore College Saratoga Springs, NY 12866