🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:28:28 -0400, "David H. Lynch Jr."
<dhlii@1dla.com> wrote:

>Netbeui is more efficient on a single point to point link,
>however it resolves everything by braodcasts and  those broadcasts
>creep up as more machines connect to the net. It has been along time since
>anyone I know have has credibly evaluated the relative merits, but generally
>I beleive the Braodcasts associated with Nebeui start to cost more than the
>gains
>from the rest of the protocol at between 10 and 15 machines, by 25
>broadcasts overwhelm

Not really..  See Message-ID:
<gn3miucbrpdr697bmmaaq49b50f5j6g6h2@4ax.com> in this same thread. 

One or two broadcasts per server per minute..  given that the approx
ethernet can carry ~7,000(10base-T) of them a second  x 60 seconds in
a minute.. That's 2/(7000*60) == 0.0004% or (less*) network
utilization PER SERVER. 

As for Workstation.. It may perform broadcast every time it
reconnects.. (1 packet every 5 to 10 minutes of idle time.)

As for steady state activity..
 Poll/Final workstation/server handshakes are NOT broadcasts. 
 Add another 0.0004% or (less*) per workstation in non-broadcast
activity.  

*-- all capacity measurements using the very old 10base-T as a
baseline.  Faster networks == even smaller percentage utilization. 

>the rest of traffic and above that NetBeui is basically a slug.
>NetBt (Netbios over TCP/IP) suffers similarly, EXCEPT that M$ has
>incorporated numerous
>measures to reduce broadcasts, including WINS servers. Finally you can drop
>NetBt
>which M$ is probably doing next (W2K and WXP no longer require it) and
>resolutions are
>accomplished primarily using DNS. TCP/IP is a broad and powerful protocol,

Which also uses ARP's.., DNS resolves, etc.. 
  A expensive protocol in term of CPU and resource utilization. 
  I see more baseline activity from one workstations polling (tcp/ip)
of the mail server. 

>it will certainly
>be out benchmarked in a variety of narrow cases, but no protocol works over
>the wide range of

I'll take Netbeui for a local network, any day and twice on Sunday.   

>condictions and topologies that it does. Further M$'s implimentation of
>NetBeui was extremely well
>optimized at one time. There implimentation of TCP/IP still is pretty weak.

No kidding..  

>"Tim Keating" <NotForJunkEmail@directinternet11.com1> wrote in message
>news:kncdiugpfu038svu5rkesb3tgi8ah93uhl@4ax.com...
>> 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.  :-(
>