🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <742@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM>, cohen@santa_fe.Tops.Sun.COM (Michael
Cohen) writes:
> But I still think that the difference in performance between TOPS and
> PublicFolder [I'm accepting Amanda's word on this; I've never seen any test
> results] is because the products are designed to do different things.
> 
> Claiming that it's because TOPS is optimized for LocalTalk is not relevant.

Actually, I wasn't particularly trying to trash TOPS.  It just came to mind
as an example of software which does not give an increase in performance
that is proportional to the increase in "raw" network bandwidth.  Sorry if
I stepped on your toes, Michael :-).

Saying that the difference is because TOPS is a file-sharing product doesn't
seem too relevant either, though, and saying it's because TOPS uses ATP is
downright silly.  ATP should give *better* performance (except in the presence
of severe network delays), since ATP has a much smaller connection
setup/takedown overhead, as well as a smaller amount of buffering and state
that must be kept per session.  But, whatever--all designs involve compromises
of one sort or another.

I don't really want to get in a flamewar over this; in the end, there are
many factors that affect the "bang for the bps" that you get out of your
network: disk speed & file system overhead, protocol scheduling, MultiFinder
issues, network traffic loads, and so on.

--
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view."
	--Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"