Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tiamat!bahamut!jim
From: jim@bahamut.fsc.com (James O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: TCP/IP on Xenix - summary
Keywords: TCP,IP,Xenix,Ethernet,Excelan
Message-ID: <261@bahamut.fsc.com>
Date: 15 Dec 89 12:53:25 GMT
References: <157@csinc.UUCP> <2840@ethz.UUCP>
Organization: Filtration Sciences - Chattanooga,TN
Lines: 46

In article <2840@ethz.UUCP>, pb@ethz.UUCP (Patrick Baur) writes:
> 
> 1) Excelan Lan Workplace
> 	- For all the psuedo devices for rlogin and telnet a getty is started
> 	  (Not like BSD where a getty (and the rlogind as for that matter) is
> 	  started when needed). This is not so bad but adds 16 processes.

It also keeps you from using the psuedo-ttys for other purposes for which a
getty is not needed, such as "usemouse" or the X window client "xterm".

> 2) SCO TCP/IP
> 	Altough I tested this must less thoroughly, seems to work oke
> 	A few remarks:
> 	- It is based on Lachman System V Streams TCP.

I wonder if this will change now that Lachman is a part of Interactive (or is it
the other way around)?

> 	    Since I installed the software on other 386's without any
> 	  problems I think it is a hardware problem.
> 	- ftp, sendmail not tested 

If you are using an alternate mail transfer agent (smail2.5, smail3), installing
SCO TCP/IP does a fair job of munging your mail system.  When installing
SCO TCP/IP, be prepared to re-install your alternate mail software right after
installing TCP/IP, or you will have mail problems.  The easy solution to this
would be for SCO to make SENDMAIL one of the selections on the installation
package menu, so you can choose not to install any of the SENDMAIL programs,
or related programs that go with it.

> 	- I don't know about porting other network software
> 	  (We only have a runtime system, I think)

smail3 compiled just fine with the SCO TCP/IP Dev Sys.  I haven't tried
anything else, but should be working on porting, or writing, some TCP/IP
sys admin software in the near future, so I'll know much more once I get
into that.

> When testing for speed, load average etc. I could not notice any difference
> between the two. (Maybe I didn't use the right tests).

Even using an 8-bit card, the SCO TCP/IP seems to perform very well.
------------- 
James B. O'Connor			Work:	jim@tiamat.fsc.com
Data Processing Manager  		Play:   jim@bahamut.fsc.com
Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc.		UUCP:	uunet!tiamat!jim