🚀 go-pugleaf

In article s0dvk4g@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com, vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.181527.19254@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, 1841hss@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (anil.verma) writes:
>
>I probably shouldn't say this, given the source of the butter on my
>bread.  The "built in redundancy features" of FDDI are needed, and in 
>no way extra.
>
>FDDI is not now and probably never will be nearly as reliable or robust
>in the face of real world hazards as 10MHz ethernet.  FDDI starts with
>a ring instead of a bus, and works down from there.
>
>FDDI may be more reliable than IBM token ring, because of the dual
>ring.  I don't know.
>
>That FDDI is less reliable is not bad.  Ethernet is in general less
>reliable and robust than simple RS-232.
>
>Speed is not free.
>
>
>Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com

While we are speculating here, there are a number of FDDI configurations
in FDDI which seem considerably more robust than anything I could get with
ethernet.  Although we have the physical tests, no full theoretical analysis
is available.  Such is just speculation...right?

---
Scott Hiles
whiles@relay.nswc.navy.mil

Standard disclaimer:
  The opinions expressed are those of my own and do not necessarily 
  reflect those of the DOD or the Navy.  I accept full responsibility.