sys_ms@bmc.uu.se (Mats Sundvall) (03/29/89)
What kind of Mac shall you use if you need a fast Appleshare fileserver on Ethertalk. Is a SE30 optimal? You have no use of the extra cards you can put into a IIcx. Or should you go for a IIcx? My feeling is that a fast disk is very important. Is the disks delivered with a SE30 or IIcx appropiate or should you choose something else? -- Mats Sundvall Biomedical Center +46/18174583 University of Uppsala Mats.Sundvall@BMC.UU.SE Sweden psi%24020019700620::MATS
lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) (03/29/89)
In article <9684@bmc.uu.se> sys_ms@bmc.uu.se (Mats Sundvall) writes: >What kind of Mac shall you use if you need a fast Appleshare fileserver >on Ethertalk. >Is a SE30 optimal? You have no use of the extra cards you can put into >a IIcx. Or should you go for a IIcx? My feeling is that a fast disk is >very important. Is the disks delivered with a SE30 or IIcx appropiate or >should you choose something else? > Mats Sundvall BMUG uses an SE/30 for its AppleShare fileserver, along with the 40 meg drive it came with. The sucker is still VERY SLOW. They're using PhoneNET, though, not EtherTalk, so I'm not sure if this will help you. Also, they're getting a couple of new external 300 meg drives soon. An SE/30 is actually faster than a IIx or IIcx, this has been discussed before many a time. So, if I were you, I'd get the SE/30, it's the fastest one on the market now. --- Alex UUCP: {att,backbones}!ucbvax!qal.berkeley.edu!lauac INTERNET: lauac%qal.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (03/30/89)
In article <22226@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> lauac@mead.qal.berkeley.edu (Alexander Lau) writes: (citation deleted) > >BMUG uses an SE/30 for its AppleShare fileserver, along with the 40 >meg drive it came with. The sucker is still VERY SLOW. They're using >PhoneNET, though, not EtherTalk, so I'm not sure if this will help you. >Also, they're getting a couple of new external 300 meg drives soon. > >An SE/30 is actually faster than a IIx or IIcx, this has been discussed >before many a time. So, if I were you, I'd get the SE/30, it's the >fastest one on the market now. > Supposedly there are going to be SE30 Ethernet cards available Real Soon Now; if BMUG can beg or borrow one from one of the companies making them, we will post our findings to the net re. network speedup. Using EtherTalk with thin-wire or twisted-pair Ethernet may just be economical enough for installations where speed is necessary, but budgets are too strained for the traditional thick-wire stuff. On the other hand, we've heard that the speedup on AFP servers from an all Ether system is not as dramatic as one would guess. Hope we get to find out firsthand... John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarnet |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 | | (415) 549-2684 | |
mithomas@bsu-cs.UUCP (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (03/30/89)
I have heard the same story so many times now that I think I can recite it in
my sleep. To get a file server running at maximum speed, you need to eliminate
bottlenecks. The way I understand it follows:
1) First of all, you need a quick machine. A Mac Plus creates a bottleneck
because of slow processor speed. It can't process requests as fast as they
can come in. A Mac SE improves on this, and the Mac II and above basically
eliminate this request queue (with some excpetions: see point 2).
2) The second bottleneck is the hard disk. You need fast disk access. I
think that 20ms or faster (with a 1:1 interleave running on some machine
that can handle this) would do the job. You do not want the machine to
have to sit there and wait for an I/O request to be completed, while
letting other service requests just pile up in the queue.
3) The third bottleneck is the network: a 16MHz Mac (for the most part) can
send out packets faster than AppleTalk will accept them, causing the
server to sit and wait until it can send out another packet. EtherTalk
reduces this bottleneck.
4) Assuming that you have gone to EtherTalk, you have to look back to the
CPU and hard disk as bottlenecks. You would probably want a 030 machine
as a server. And that machine should have at least 2MB of memory for
disk caching, cutting down response time, since most of the time there
will be multiple requests for the same data.
5) Now the EtherTalk interface card becomes a bottleneck. You would want a
card that has sufficient buffering (without the processor having to worry
about it). And you would probably not want a card that is limited by the
NuBus; the SE/30 with an EtherTalk card that can directly access the CPU
should help out here. (The SE/30 also eliminates the NuBus interrupts,
causing the machine to move faster as well--in theory.)
So that is how I see it. I don't consider myself an expert at increasing
performance of networks, but from various lectures that I have listened to
from Apple system engineers, this in the information that I have gathered.
I welcome any responses to this posting. Please send them directly to me
and I will summarize and post the responses (unless you think your comment
is too important to wait).
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/10/89)
In article <9684@bmc.uu.se> sys_ms@bmc.uu.se (Mats Sundvall) writes: > >What kind of Mac shall you use if you need a fast Appleshare fileserver >on Ethertalk. > >Is a SE30 optimal? You have no use of the extra cards you can put into >a IIcx. Or should you go for a IIcx? My feeling is that a fast disk is >very important. Is the disks delivered with a SE30 or IIcx appropiate or >should you choose something else? MacUser has an article on networks in the May issue. While I disagree with most of the article, they are absolutely correct about what kind of machine to get for a server: an SE/30 or II. Except, now the IIcx is out. So it should be, an SE/30 or a IIcx. They also give the intelligent suggestion of using Timbuktu to set up the server, so you don't have to buy another keyboard, screen, and video card. (Of course, for initial configuration you'll want to set up the hard disk on a machine with these useful items...) The only important reason to get a IIcx instead of the SE/30 is if you *REALLY* need a fast server. In that case, get one of the three DMA boards currently being marketed (it's kind of hard to get a straight answer as to whether or not they are caching, doing DMA, both, or niether, but whatever they do they all speed up disk access by at least 200%, sometimes 400% or better). Since all of these boards require the NuBus, you'll need the IIcx. Actually, that works out quite nicely. Three slots in the IIcx: One for DMA SCSI One for EtherTalk One for Video If you are running it without a video card (not a bad idea at all), you could wait a few weeks/months for the Moc OS drivers to be released for the CommCard, and then you could put in the Commcard in the third slot. That would let you run bridging software (Liason) on the same server so it could serve a LocalTalk net as well, and bridge the two nets. (Use of the CommCard cuts the CPU overhead of bridging, and LocalTalk in general, to an absolute minimum). Or you could put in a TokenTalk card, also due in a little while. Why, the possibilities are endless! Do I hear someone asking about ArcTalk? :-) Don't forget the disks. They are at least as important as the server (despite MacUser's report). If you need high performance, there's only one possible choice. The Wren Runner, a 321MB drive with a true 10.7 ms access time and a transfer rate that can probably outrun any of the DMA boards you can buy. You should also consider getting more than one drive. Sharing the load across platters can dramatically widen the server bottleneck. Lastly, get some memory to cache the disk. The best option is to get it on one of the DMA boards. --- Alexis Rosen alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}
alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/10/89)
I forgot- if you want drives other than the Wren Runner, get another Wren.
They are made by CDC (the Imprimis division). They come in sizes of 90MB and
170MB half-height, and 150, 300, and 600 MB full-height (750 MB and 1GB units
are coming soon). Many manufacturers sell these drives, such as MicroNet.
The Miniscribes are okay but not worth saving the couple hundred bucks.
The Rodimes don't even come close. DON'T put one on your server!!! The same
goes double for the Seagates. The Quantums are extremely nice units, but they
don't quite match up to even the slowest wren, so unless desk space is at an
absolute premium, I wouldn't use them (for personal use, on the other hand,
they're very nice).
---
Alexis Rosen
alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (04/11/89)
In article <1529@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: > >If you are running it without a video card (not a bad idea at all), you could >wait a few weeks/months for the Moc OS drivers to be released for the CommCard, >and then you could put in the Commcard in the third slot. That would let you >run bridging software (Liason) on the same server so it could serve a >LocalTalk net as well, and bridge the two nets. (Use of the CommCard cuts the >CPU overhead of bridging, and LocalTalk in general, to an absolute minimum). >Or you could put in a TokenTalk card, also due in a little while. Why, the >possibilities are endless! Do I hear someone asking about ArcTalk? :-) Actually the CommCard's MacOS LocalTalk drivers (for use under the LAP manager) were released at the same time as the A/UX software (a year ago). It's the MacOS serial drivers that have not been released yet ..... For LocalTalk the CommCard gives <= 1 interrupt/received/sent packet, can buffer 50 packets (roughly 25 send/25 rcv) and can be sending/reciving one request while the server is doing the disk IO for another Anyway enough commercials Paul -- Paul Campbell, Taniwha Systems Design, Oakland CA ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul
sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) (04/11/89)
In article <1529@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: >MacUser has an article on networks in the May issue. While I disagree with >most of the article, they are absolutely correct about what kind of machine >to get for a server: an SE/30 or II. Except, now the IIcx is out. So it >should be, an SE/30 or a IIcx. They also give the intelligent suggestion >of using Timbuktu to set up the server, so you don't have to buy another >keyboard, screen, and video card. (Of course, for initial configuration >you'll want to set up the hard disk on a machine with these useful items...) Why spend all that extra money on a fully-functional Mac? Use something like the Jasmine DirectServe! The DirectServe uses a 68010 @ 10MHz with zero wait states, and 1, 2, or 4MB of RAM available, plus it cashes to increase response 20-40% more. The DS doesn't waste time with screen refreshes or bus scans- it just plows through network traffic. True, it doesn't work with EtherNet, but if you just want to use it as a server for up to 40 users/ bridges on LocalTalk and use AppleShare (which is included in firmware), its a great deal. Just add a disk drive and you're set. Oh, and of course Jasmine doesn't even know I exsist, except for the fact that I shelled out $1000+ dollars for a drive a couple of months ago, to which they promptly lowered their prices a couple hundred, and now have stopped making drives in my size (70). All the info above is from their sales flyer. sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu -- * Blake "Hey, where's *MY* fancy footer?" Sobiloff * * "Meet me in a restaurant..." or call me at- * * sobiloff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu *
alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/14/89)
In article <1531@ccnysci.UUCP> I wrote: >The Miniscribes are okay but not worth saving the couple hundred bucks. >The Rodimes don't even come close. DON'T put one on your server!!! The same >goes double for the Seagates. The Quantums are extremely nice units, but they >don't quite match up to even the slowest wren, so unless desk space is at an >absolute premium, I wouldn't use them (for personal use, on the other hand, >they're very nice). Since then I have been to Comdex, and I have some new information. First of all, as most of you know, Rodime is in some very serious trouble. Maybe it would be wise to avoid them for now for ANY use. I hear now that the latest Miniscribes are actually a shade faster than the Wrens. I'm not sure I believe this, but the fellow who said it should know what he's talking about. Miniscribe and Imprimis/CDC both have 5.25" half-height 380MB disks! The access time claimed is 14-15ms. --- Alexis Rosen alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}
alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (04/14/89)
In article <1782@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> sobiloff@thor.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) writes: >In article <1529@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: >>MacUser has an article on networks in the May issue. While I disagree with >>most of the article, they are absolutely correct about what kind of machine >>to get for a server: an SE/30 or II. Except, now the IIcx is out. So it >>should be, an SE/30 or a IIcx. > >Why spend all that extra money on a fully-functional Mac? Use something like >the Jasmine DirectServe! The DirectServe uses a 68010 @ 10MHz with zero >wait states, and 1, 2, or 4MB of RAM available, plus it cashes to increase >response 20-40% more. The DS doesn't waste time with screen refreshes or bus >scans- it just plows through network traffic. True, it doesn't work with >EtherNet, but if you just want to use it as a server for up to 40 users/ >bridges on LocalTalk and use AppleShare (which is included in firmware), its >a great deal. Just add a disk drive and you're set. Well, at 10Mhz of course it has no waits. Anyway, there are two answers. First, despite its long and colorful history (this is probably the oldest networking product for the Mac available today) the DirectServe is in the "new and untested" category. Second, until someone tests it heavily, I won't trust it for AFP record-locking stuff (if TOPS can't get that right, maybe others are playing fast-and-loose too?) I didn't say you need to dedicate the Mac, by the way. If you're running TOPS, it won't take away the machine. But none of this is really relevant. The original poster asked for the most efficient (=fastest) AppleShare server. An '030 Mac of any flavor will beat the DirectServe by a country mile. Furthermore, it is Ether/Token/Flash/Arc- Talk capable, and the DirectServe never will be ***** WATCH FOR A $295 ETHERTALK CARD AT THE MACWORLD EXPO !!!!! This sounds incredible, but my source has been reliable in the past, and he was very specific about the card. If this is true (and it will be ready for shipment at the time it's announced), this will have an incredible impact on the Mac networking market. It will probably kill FlashTalk, for example. --- Alexis Rosen alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet}
captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) (04/19/89)
In article <1576@ccnysci.UUCP: alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes: :In article <1782@thor.acc.stolaf.edu: sobiloff@thor.stolaf.edu (Blake Sobiloff) writes: ::Why spend all that extra money on a fully-functional Mac? Use something like ::the Jasmine DirectServe! The DirectServe uses a 68010 @ 10MHz with zero ::wait states, and 1, 2, or 4MB of RAM available, plus it cashes to increase ::response 20-40% more. The DS doesn't waste time with screen refreshes or bus ::scans- it just plows through network traffic. True, it doesn't work with ::EtherNet, but if you just want to use it as a server for up to 40 users/ ::bridges on LocalTalk and use AppleShare (which is included in firmware), its ::a great deal. Just add a disk drive and you're set. : :Well, at 10Mhz of course it has no waits. :Anyway, there are two answers. First, despite its long and colorful history :(this is probably the oldest networking product for the Mac available today) :the DirectServe is in the "new and untested" category. Second, until someone :tests it heavily, I won't trust it for AFP record-locking stuff (if TOPS can't :get that right, maybe others are playing fast-and-loose too?) Regarding the desirability of having just a simple box (not a full-blown Mac) as an AppleShare server, has anybody heard/done something similar to the Hackintosh project that appeared not too long ago in computer shopper? Throwing in a power supply, a Mac motherboard (whichever model you need) and a SCSI hd in a case could be an interesting (and cheap project). I seem to remember Mac+ motherboards could be had for ~$400 (possibly much lower now in the year of the CPU) and other models' motherboards were available as well. Toss in a high powered HD (a high capacity Wren Runner) which you loaded with AppleShare while hooked up to a normal Mac, and you could have a high performance dedicated server at a lower price than the dedicated SE30 or the DirectServe (you'd probably need an SE30 board for optimum performance, but I'm sure those can be obtained). If anyone has tried anything along these lines (or has any thoughts on it) drop me a line or post if you'd rather do that. God I'm in a rambling mode today. -Ivan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | "My father peddles opium, my mother's on the dole. | | My sister used to walk the streets but now she's on parole. | | My uncle pays with little girlss; my aunt, she raped a steer, | | But they won't even speak to me 'cause I'm an engineer." | | -The MIT Engineers' Drinking Song | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | ARPA: captkidd@athena.mit.edu | | DISCLAIMER: It's my spout, not MIT's (would they really say such garbage?) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------