Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!husc6!bbn!rochester!udel!princeton!njin!aramis.rutgers.edu!elbereth.rutgers.edu!zydeco.rutgers.edu!latzko From: latzko@zydeco.rutgers.edu (Alexander Latzko) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc Subject: Re: TCP/IP vis Netware. Message-ID: Date: 21 Oct 88 17:38:52 GMT References: <132@icarus.kulcs.uucp> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 57 In article <132@icarus.kulcs.uucp> dannyb@kulcs.uucp (Danny Backx) writes: > In article latzko@zydeco.rutgers.edu (Alexander Latzko) writes: > >Having some netware and a large amount to IP around here ( Rutgers U ) > >has lead me to some astonishing conclusions: > > > >1> Boards which do TCP on board are generally a waste of time and > >2> The Micom/Interlan Gateway lists for $3995 and has performance > >limitations. You also probably don't want to use it in anything > >smaller than a 386. > >3> Packet drivers are available and work well. Basically this will > >let you use your favorite TCP and Novell on the same workstation > >with a much less expensive card since the software does the work. > > Could you provide us with some explanation of these statements? > > Especially (1) seems to be the direct opposite of what everybody claims: that > the host OS can be relieved of a lot of work with TCP on a board. 1> I realize I shouldn't generalize but occasionally it looks safe in context. It depends on what the host processor is and what the processor on the card is. If the host processor is a 386 and the processor on the card is a 186 or a slow 286 then under DOS ( which is where these comments are pointed ) it will indeed slow the system down. Moreover, the implementations of TCP I have seen for the embedded cards haven't been nearly as good as for dumb cards. Under a true multitasking operating system which knows how to block io they can be a win. Novell is a multitasking OS and I will admit to using Micom NP600A cards in 286 servers. 2> The Micom/Interlan gateway does indeed list for US$3995. It is limited in the number of IP connections it can maintain. The last time I looked to would only handle 24 connections. In a fairly large network this is simply not enough. The last time I saw one in action it was chewing up over 10% of the cpu on a compaq 386/16 for 4 telnets. Unfortunatly, I didn't get a chance to see if that was a constant. I suspect Larry Backman of Interlan will come breating down my neck if I am too far off the mark. I expect it will get better as time goes on ( it has improved remarkably in the last year and development continues ) so I would like to be proven wrong. For someone who had an installed base of some random network interconnect and won't be heavy IP users it is the only solution. 3> Packet drivers are low level device drivers which pass information to more than one active job. Simply put you load the device driver as you normally would. Then instead of only talking to IP or IGX it speaks to both. Nifty, eh what. The list of companies which have packet drivers is much longer than I may have implied, here are all the ones I know of: Micom/Interlan, Sytek, Western Digital,Proteon, BICC,and Torus. > Danny Backx | mail: Danny Backx > E-mail: dannyb@kulcs.UUCP | Celestijnenlaan 200 A cheers /S*