Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:1374 comp.dcom.modems:1873
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!oddjob!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!pasteur!ames!pacbell!att!ihnp4!twitch!tjt
From: tjt@twitch.UUCP ( T.J.Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: TrailBlazer+/ALM-2 interaction with Ethernet (!)
Summary: Is the ALM-2 that bad?
Keywords: TrailBlazer Plus ALM-2 Sun Ethernet errors
Message-ID: <1043@twitch.UUCP>
Date: 18 May 88 13:27:16 GMT
References: <4638@coherent.com>
Distribution: comp
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 10

In article <4638@coherent.com>, dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes:
> ....
> At this point, we've decided to leave the TrailBlazer connected to CPU
> port A... it eliminates one source of Ethernet errors under some
> conditions, and the CPU seems to be able to ingest 19200-baud data from
> the modem much more efficiently (~ 30% of the processor when connected
> to CPU port A, vs.  ~ 60% when connected to the ALM-2).

Isn't the ALM-2 supposed to offload any of the tty-handling from the main
CPU?  This performance seems poor.   ...Tim Thompson...ihnp4!twitch!tjt...