🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <132@icarus.kulcs.uucp> dannyb@kulcs.uucp (Danny Backx) writes:

> In article <Oct.16.15.09.26.1988.269@zydeco.rutgers.edu> latzko@zydeco.rutgers.edu (Alexander Latzko) writes:
> >Having some netware and a large amount to IP around here ( Rutgers U )
> >has lead me to some astonishing conclusions:
> >
> >1> Boards which do TCP on board are generally a waste of time and
> >2> The Micom/Interlan Gateway lists for $3995 and has performance
> >limitations.  You also probably don't want to use it in anything
> >smaller than a 386.
> >3> Packet drivers are available and work well.  Basically this will
> >let you use your favorite TCP and Novell on the same workstation 
> >with a much less expensive card since the software does the work.
> 
> Could you provide us with some explanation of these statements?
> 
> Especially (1) seems to be the direct opposite of what everybody claims: that
> the host OS can be relieved of a lot of work with TCP on a board.

1> I realize I shouldn't generalize but occasionally it looks safe in
context.  It depends on what the host processor is and what the
processor on the card is.  If the host processor is a 386 and the
processor on the card is a 186 or a slow 286 then under DOS ( which is
where these comments are pointed ) it will indeed slow the system
down.  Moreover, the implementations of TCP I have seen for the
embedded cards haven't been nearly as good as for dumb cards.

Under a true multitasking operating system which knows how to block io
they can be a win.  Novell is a multitasking OS and I will admit to
using Micom NP600A cards in 286 servers.

2> The Micom/Interlan gateway does indeed list for US$3995.  It is
limited in the number of IP connections it can maintain.  The last
time I looked to would only handle 24 connections.  In a fairly large
network this is simply not enough.  The last time I saw one in action
it was chewing up over 10% of the cpu on a compaq 386/16 for 4
telnets.  Unfortunatly, I didn't get a chance to see if that was a
constant. I suspect Larry Backman of Interlan will come breating down
my neck if I am too far off the mark.  I expect it will get better as
time goes on ( it has improved remarkably in the last year and
development continues ) so I would like to be proven wrong.  For
someone who had an installed base of some random network interconnect
and won't be heavy IP users it is the only solution.

3> Packet drivers are low level device drivers which pass information
to more than one active job.  Simply put you load the device driver as
you normally would.  Then instead of only talking to IP or IGX it
speaks to both.  Nifty, eh what.   The list of companies which have
packet drivers is much longer than I may have implied, here are all
the ones I know of: Micom/Interlan, Sytek, Western Digital,Proteon, 
BICC,and Torus.

>  Danny Backx                            |  mail: Danny Backx
>  E-mail: dannyb@kulcs.UUCP              |        Celestijnenlaan 200 A

cheers
/S*