Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ubvax!ames!lamaster From: lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Ethernet terminal servers Message-ID: <21035@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Date: 26 Jan 89 00:34:56 GMT References: <6556@fluke.COM> <13718@cup.portal.com> Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center Lines: 24 In article hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: >Here are some advantages and disadvantages of a terminal server >8) If lots of people telnet from the machine they are wired to to >others, you're using your hosts as terminal servers. They are >probably more expensive per user than a real terminal server, and >probably not as good. About 1 1/2 years ago, I looked at a number of our systems here when this issue came up. Typically, HALF of all terminal sessions on our collection of VMS VAXes were SET HOST to somewhere else. After pondering this for a few days, I decided that terminal servers, as a system, were more efficient than hardwired terminals. Then, I looked at the overhead. Well, at first it didn't look too good (old TWG TCP). But then, looking at Unix and new TWG TCP/IP, things looked much better. In fact, it may be more efficient now to use a terminal server even to get to a single host. And it is definitely more efficient overall if people typically log on to other systems a lot of the time. -- Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117