🚀 go-pugleaf

Back in the days when netbui was the default stack on NT, and TCP/IP
was on its own diskette, NT did a really crappy job with the IP stack
and SMB shares.

By 4.0  I think you would find that tcp/ip-netbui  performance was
very similiar.

The main problem with Netbui in my eyes is that Windows will try to
use it for name resolution, even when it should know better.

Sniff on the line and watch all the requests for the netbios name
www.google.com  and you will see what I mean. This results in odd
pauses when accessing the net, and of course, ulcers.

KOM

On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 05:26:58 -0400, Tim Keating
<NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 05:46:54 GMT, "Warren H." <wholzem@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gunter Herrmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Since it is about using a router NetBEUI is completely useless.
>>> Unlike TCP/IP and SPX/IPX, NetBEUI is NOT routable.
>>
>>You are correct that NetBEUI is not routable, but the "broadband routers"
>>available on the market today use a router only for the LAN to WAN
>>connection. The LAN is still serviced by a switch or a hub, so non-routable
>>protocols still pass on the LAN.
>>
>>HOWEVER, just because it does work is no reason to install it. TCP/IP will
>>work on these networks as well. If it doesn't, then something is
>>misconfigured. Adding a second protocol doesn't fix the problem. It just
>>works around it. One or the other protocol is going to be the default
>>protocol. Let's look at the options:
>>
>>If TCP/IP is the default protocol, then TCP/IP communications will be
>>attempted first, and until they fail or time-out, NetBEUI won't be used. If
>>NetBEUI is the default protocol, then NetBEUI communications will be
>>attempted first, and TCP/IP won't be attempted until NetBEUI fails.
>>
>>So while previous posters have noted that NetBEUI is a great little protocol
>>for small LAN's, it was designed with the assumption that it would be the
>>primary protocol, or perhaps secondary to IPX/SPX on a Novel network. The
>>Internet was something that existed, but most LAN's weren't even connected
>>to the Internet. In those days, NetBEUI was the perfect solution to simple
>>networking.
>>
>>The situation today is different. TCP/IP is so integrated in Windows XP that
>>it cannot be uninstalled through the GUI, and it cannot be made to be the
>>secondary protocol to NetBEUI. NetBEUI is so much out of the picture that
>>they buried it on the CD, and didn't make allowances for it to be installed
>>through the GUI.
>>
>>The solution to having a LAN where TCP/IP is not working for internal
>>communications is to fix TCP/IP. Installing NetBEUI is like putting a sign
>>on your front door telling people to go around back instead of fixing the
>
>Not quite.. NetBeui has many advantages..
> NO need to worry about direct hacking from outside..
>   Non-routable protocol.. 
> It's also a LOT faster and more efficient protocol..
>
>>way the front door sticks. It may be a temporary work-around, but it's not a
>>solution.
>
>1st. Last time I measured it.. NT 3.5x/4x land.. 
>   Netbeui was 20 to 30 times more CPU efficient than it's TCP based
>cousin.   It was also ~10 times faster over 100BaseTX connection. 
>
>   I.E. Netbios over TCP  400KB/sec.. 100%  of 100 Mhz P5 cpu.
>         Netbeui 4MB/sec.. 35 - 40% of 100Mhz P5 cpu.. 
>
>2nd. NT tended to use the Netbios over TCP first.. Why? only M$
>knows.. It still is a real pain to force it too use the more efficient
>Netbeui stack.  I.E.  Break the bindings Between Netbios and TCP/IP.
>
>3rd. You can peacefully coexist TCP and Netbeui on the same lan.. You
>just got to know which bindings to break.     
>
>----------
>
>Now, you may think protocol efficiency doesn't matter with today's
>faster CPU's.. Until you scale up to a 1Gb or 10Gb/sec Lan, then you
>can watch all your server&client CPU cycles get sucked up, handling
>the TCP/IP stack, while your super fast Lan remains mostly idle.  :-(