Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!enea!maxim!prc From: prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Ethernet terminal servers Message-ID: <465@maxim.ERBE.SE> Date: 23 Jan 89 08:11:34 GMT References: <6556@fluke.COM> <13718@cup.portal.com> Organization: ERBE DATA AB Lines: 29 In article <13718@cup.portal.com>, mhyman@cup.portal.com (Marco S Hyman) writes: > Why use a terminal server? If I need more serial access to our local > network my first thought would be to add more serial ports to one or > more of the machines on the network. Do that. Go ahead and add, say, 16 more ports to each one of your 5 computers on the network, whereas you can add ONE terminal server with 16 ports on it to get the same accessability. Furthermore, assume that someone normally does his work on machine A, but he has his terminal connected to machine B simply because there's no more ports on machine A. Then machine B is only used as a very, very expensive network interface. Not to mention if it goes down... And can you use multiple sessions on a direct-connected terminal (there's C shell with job control, but everything in the world isn't BSD)? And what about shared printers, shared modems, SL/IP connections, high-speed serial communication (most computers can't go beyond 19.2 Kbps), etc etc? I don't mean that ports on the computer is a bad thing, but terminal servers are simply more useful/increases accessability/has better price/ performance ratio than the equal number of ports on each one of your machines. -- Robert Claeson, ERBE DATA AB, P.O. Box 77, S-175 22 Jarfalla, Sweden "No problems." -- Alf Tel: +46 758-202 50 EUnet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE uucp: uunet!erbe.se!rclaeson Fax: +46 758-197 20 Internet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE BITNET: rclaeson@ERBE.SE