🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <33128@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>I don't want to get into the good points and bad points of ND (I own three
>"No ND" buttons, personally...) but I do want to point out that Apple
>couldn't port ND if they wanted to, because ND isn't a technology that Sun
>make available to outside parties (unlike NFS, YP, RPC, XDR, and NFS). 
>
>Of course, with SunOS 4.0, ND will be going away, and NFS enhanced so
>that it will take over all the functionality of ND, clean up some of
>the administrative glitches that ND users learn to love, and will
>remove any excuse for Apple to not support diskless machines (hee-hee).
>
Yeah - that's the way I should have phrased it in the first place.
To duplicate ND would not have been worth it given what is coming
down the pike.

However, changing context a bit:

If SUN 3/260 can really only handle 10-12 diskless before sluggishness
overwhelms, then isn't the true cost of those 10-12 diskless workstations
= workstation_cost + 1/10 or 1/12 of 3/260 cost?

And what if a hard disk is much less than 1/10 or 1/12 of a 3/260, and
said hard disk allows 20-24 workstations per server?

I am very interested in the performance and cost tradeoffs in this area
and would like input - it will affect Apple A/UX development priorities.
                          ----
Philip K. Ronzone
A/UX Technical Manager

MAIL:  Philip K. Ronzone
       Apple Computer
       Mail Stop 27AJ
       10500 N. DeAnza Blvd.
       Cupertino, CA  95014

PHONE: (408) 973-2509
UUCP:  ...!{sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft}!apple!phil