rdp@pbseps.UUCP (Richard Perlman) (07/27/88)
We are about to install an ethernet and have been looking at the Western Digital EtherCard PLUS [WDLAN-EPR (F001)] [Model No. WD8003E]. Our net will composed of thinwire connecting 10 - 40 PCs to a Sequent Symmetry host. In most cases we will use the onboard xcvr and T-connector. We will be running PC-NFS software on the PCs. Our choice is heavily influenced by price, we can get the WD boards for ~$215. NOW: What are we missing here? Is there anything we should know about the WD board, the combination of board & PC-NFS, our net design, or ?? Replies by Email appreciated. I will summarize and forward the replies to interested parties. Thanks....
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (07/27/88)
In article <128@pbseps.UUCP> rdp@pbseps.PacBell.COM (Richard Perlman) writes: >NOW: What are we missing here? Is there anything we should know >about the WD board, the combination of board & PC-NFS, our net >design, or ?? Usually you get what you pay for. In this case, you get a very high quality network at a rock bottom price. We use this combination with great success here. The WD board is fast, PC-NFS has lots of nice features (though it is not perfect) and the two play nicely together. KA9Q is even cheaper than PC-NFS but I find the network file system to be indispensible. We believe the LANCE is a better chip than what WD uses but you can't really buy an AT board with an LANCE on it to use with PC-NFS yet. -- I speak for myself, not the company. Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.com
seeger@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Charles Seeger) (07/27/88)
In article <22466@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <128@pbseps.UUCP> rdp@pbseps.PacBell.COM (Richard Perlman) writes: >>NOW: What are we missing here? Is there anything we should know >>about the WD board, the combination of board & PC-NFS, our net > >Usually you get what you pay for. In this case, you get a very high >quality network at a rock bottom price. We use this combination with >great success here. The WD board is fast, PC-NFS has lots of nice >features (though it is not perfect) and the two play nicely together. Glad to hear that the WD is so good (got a few on order). >We believe the LANCE is a better chip than what WD uses but you can't Really? The manual for my Chipcom Ethermodem derates its performance when driven by the Lance, but mentions no degradation for any other implementations. Have also seen criticism of the Lances in Sun 3/50s and 3/60s. Any comments or explanations? Chuck (still working on a neat ~/.signature) Seeger