belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) (03/05/91)
I have two questions, both concerning the use of a TCP/IP terminal server and a LAN card as a means of attaching terminals to a 9000/800-series machine (825 or 835): 1. I am unclear whether or not the Arpa/Berkeley Services software is required for this purpose. The LAN will not be used for any other purpose at this time. Is the software that comes with the LAN (36967A) sufficient for simple terminal connections? (The server I plan to use is a VISTA -- HP's is simply too costly!) 2. Can someone give me some idea of how this configuration compares to normal HP MUX (6-port) connections, in terms of performance? The situation calls for about 30 new terminals (and we have room for 5 new MUX cards, but that would exhaust our slots). Is the TCP/IP overhead significant in terms of CPU cycles? I/O bandwidth? I prefer this solution since it is cheaper, and allows for further expansion of ports, and also leaves us with some empty slots for HP-IB cards, etc... but will I pay a performance price? Any input will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+ | Hershel Belkin hp9000/825(HP-UX)| UUCP: teecs!belkin | | Test Equipment Engineering Computing Services |Phone: 416 249-1231 x2647| | Litton Systems Canada Limited (Toronto) | FAX: 416 246-5233 | +-----------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
jim@tiamat.fsc.com ( IT Manager) (03/08/91)
In article <29280002@teecs.UUCP>, belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) writes: > I have two questions, both concerning the use of a TCP/IP terminal > server and a LAN card as a means of attaching terminals to a 9000/800-series > machine (825 or 835): > > 1. I am unclear whether or not the Arpa/Berkeley Services software is > required for this purpose. The LAN will not be used for any other > purpose at this time. Is the software that comes with the LAN (36967A) > sufficient for simple terminal connections? (The server I plan to The ARPA/Berkeley services will be needed. Most terminal servers use either Telnet or Rlogin to make the connection to the host. Without the ARPA/Berkelly services you won't have the necessary daemons to answer the incoming requests on the telnet and rlogin TCP/IP ports. > use is a VISTA -- HP's is simply too costly!) Amen, to that. We decided to use Annex II servers from Xylogics, which were still a little expensive, but have been great performers. Also, Xylogics distributes the boot/management software as source, so you can use any machine with a socket library available to compile and run the supplied software (we use HP-UX, Xenix, and SCO Unix). > 2. Can someone give me some idea of how this configuration compares to > normal HP MUX (6-port) connections, in terms of performance? The > situation calls for about 30 new terminals (and we have room for > 5 new MUX cards, but that would exhaust our slots). Is the TCP/IP > overhead significant in terms of CPU cycles? I/O bandwidth? Performance seems to be very good here, but our network load is very low since the terminal servers are the primary traffic generators. Things might be very different if we had lots of workstations running X or NFS. > I prefer this solution since it is cheaper, and allows for further > expansion of ports, and also leaves us with some empty slots for > HP-IB cards, etc... but will I pay a performance price? I don't think so. We went the TS route for exactly the reason you stated. Plus, you can locate the TS's closer to the connected devices, so that RS-232 cable lengths are shortened (we put our TS's out in the wiring closets, and ran the Ethernet to them). Currently, most of our users access the computer via a terminal server, and since the terminal server supports port rates of 38400 baud, they're probably seeing better performance than the users connected to mux ports running at 19200. --jim ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc. 615/821-4022 x. 651
dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) (03/08/91)
From: belkin@teecs.UUCP (Hershel Belkin) >a TCP/IP terminal >server and a LAN card as a means of attaching terminals to a 9000/800-series >machine (825 or 835): >2. Can someone give me some idea of how this configuration compares to > normal HP MUX (6-port) connections, in terms of performance? It depends on your application, but the generally correct answer is that the MUX solution offers significantly better performance. The exceptions are cases where there are a lot of little used terminals, and cases where the TCP traffic is bundled into TCP packets containing far more than a single character. MUX-16s (16 port muxes) may offer a better solution. Dan Hepner