Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!noah.arc.CDN!kenw From: kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: RE: Pacer vs. Alisa Message-ID: <1257*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> Date: 18 Apr 88 22:35:00 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 68 > 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. We were in a similar quandry. We chose Pacer. Here are a few of the reasons. Pacer fully implements Appleshare for VMS, and as far as I can tell, does it better than Alisa does. They use the Apple client software on the Mac, without modification. Also, they use the NATIVE VMS file structure. This has two results: speed, and transparency. You can use your Mac to look at your VMS file structure. Note that the version Pacer is shipping now is BETA. It wass announced BEFORE Alisa's, so I would suspect that there's is, too. Their Virtual Disk server software, on the other hand, has been out for some time. > 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. On the other hand, this almost certainly translates to better speed of service. I guess you get what you pay for; you can't expect premium service on overloaded equipment. > 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. I definitely do _not_ agree. I think you will find that Tops (they've announced a Mac file server due out later this year), Alisa, and Pacer all have comparable prices for a comparable number of users, at least in the 30- user ballbark. While you have a point regarding inactivity, a per-user license allows sites to tailor the cost to the number of people who will _actually_ _use_ the facility, rather than than saying "your VAX will support 100 users, therefore you must pay for 100 users". Other considerations: a) Pacer runs on VAX/VMS, most Unix systems, Primes, Crays, and others. It supports both Macintoshes and PCs. It runs over Ethernet, Appletalk, and RS232. b) TSSnet, which is now sold by Alisa (I believe it's a separate package, and NOT cheap) supports VMS mail to Macs, among other DECnetish things. I don't know the details. One thing I have found; it's like walking on quicksand trying to get a complete, accurate picture of things. They keep changing, but they're never quite good enough! /kenw