mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (12/01/88)
What TCP/IP board should I buy for 386 Unix? I see Excelan's name the most, but I believe I've also seen some negative comments about their response to OS upgrades, etc. Thanks in advance for your help. I'll post a summary if anyone is interested. -- Mark McWiggins UUCP: uunet!intek01!mark DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong. INTERNET: intek01!mark@uunet.uu.net (206) 455-9935
ken@uport.UUCP (Ken Chapin) (12/01/88)
In article <374@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes:
->What TCP/IP board should I buy for 386 Unix? I see Excelan's name the
->most, but I believe I've also seen some negative comments about their
->response to OS upgrades, etc.
->
->Thanks in advance for your help. I'll post a summary if anyone is interested.
->--
->
->Mark McWiggins UUCP: uunet!intek01!mark
Excelan's software for SVR3.0 is a bit outdated and does not support streams. I think that Micom/Interlan has a better product and is much more up to date.romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us (John Romkey) (12/02/88)
In article <374@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: >What TCP/IP board should I buy for 386 Unix? You might want to consider a host-based implementation. The only one out there that I know of is by Streamlined Networks. I used it running under Bell Technologies UNIX System V and it worked quite well. It had all the standard BSD stuff. With a good ethernet board (like the Western Digital WD8003), I wouldn't be surprised if the Streamlined Networks TCP running on the 386 outperformed what you'd get from a smart board, which is likely to only have an 80186 or such on it. The latest ad I've seen is in the December issue of UNIX Review. Their address is: Streamlined Networks PO Box 14763 Fremont, CA 94539 (415) 659-1450 I have no association with them whatsoever. -- - john romkey romkey@asylum.uucp romkey@xx.lcs.mit.edu romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down.
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (12/03/88)
In article <1023@asylum.sf.ca.us> romkey@asylum.UUCP (John Romkey) writes: >In article <374@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: >>What TCP/IP board should I buy for 386 Unix? >You might want to consider a host-based implementation. The only one >out there that I know of is by Streamlined Networks. I used it running >under Bell Technologies UNIX System V and it worked quite well. It had >all the standard BSD stuff. Ditto with John about host-based TCP/IP's usually outperforming the so-called "smart" cards. In addition, a multi-homed host running a host-based TCP/IP can perform routing between the different networks, something which is difficult, if not impossible, to do with multiple smart cards, each of which usually has a self-contained IP implementation which does not know of the others. Though I used the Streamlined Networks package with John on a Bell Tech box and was very happy with it, I fear that their XENIX market will be closing very quickly, because SCO has just announced their own host- based TCP/IP package which will also integrate smoothly with their forthcoming NFS and X11 ports. I believe the TCP and NFS ports are derived from Lachman, X11 from Locus. I don't have any experience with it yet, but as soon as it's available, I'll install it and let the net know what my experience is. ISC's 386/ix has a host-based TCP/IP implementation as well. -- Steve Dyer dyer@harvard.harvard.edu dyer@spdcc.COM aka {harvard,husc6,linus,ima,bbn,m2c,mipseast}!spdcc!dyer
jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) (12/06/88)
In article <1023@asylum.sf.ca.us>, romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us (John Romkey) writes: > In article <374@intek01.UUCP> mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) writes: > >What TCP/IP board should I buy for 386 Unix? > You might want to consider a host-based implementation. The only one > out there that I know of is by Streamlined Networks. I used it running Interactive 386/ix 1.06 has, and SCO Unix V.3.2 will have, as options, host based TCP/IP with support for the following dumb ethernet boards: - Western Digital WD8003 - Ungermann Bass PC-NIC 2273A (maybe 386/ix only?) - 3Com 3C501/502/503 - Micom NI5010 (maybe 386/ix only?) Sun's PC-NFS version 3 supports the same boards and more. If I were planning for the future with PC-bus machines, I would pick from this list. -- Jim Morton, APPLiX Inc., Westboro, MA UUCP: ...harvard!m2c!applix!jim jim@applix.m2c.org
ken@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Ken) (12/07/88)
In article <873@applix.UUCP> jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) writes:
Interactive 386/ix 1.06 has, and SCO Unix V.3.2 will have, as options,
host based TCP/IP with support for the following dumb ethernet boards:
Does anyone have a timeframe on when SCO's TCP/IP will be released?
Much appreciated...
Ken
--
Kenneth R. van Wyk Calvin's mom running a bath for Calvin...
User Services Senior Consultant Calvin: It's too cold!
Lehigh University Computing Center Calvin: Now it's too hot!
Internet: <luken@Spot.CC.Lehigh.EDU> Calvin: Now it's too cold!
BITNET: <LUKEN@LEHIIBM1> Calvin: Now it's too deep!tif@cpe.UUCP (12/08/88)
In article <873@applix.UUCP> jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) writes: >Interactive 386/ix 1.06 has, and SCO Unix V.3.2 will have, as options, >host based TCP/IP with support for the following dumb ethernet boards: Does it bother anybody else that they are only supporting dumb boards? Won't that be an awful heavy load on the CPU? Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. bellcore!motown!sys1!cpe!tif
dyer@arktouros.MIT.EDU (Steve Dyer) (12/08/88)
In article <6800058@cpe> tif@cpe.UUCP writes: > >In article <873@applix.UUCP> jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) writes: >>Interactive 386/ix 1.06 has, and SCO Unix V.3.2 will have, as options, >>host based TCP/IP with support for the following dumb ethernet boards: > >Does it bother anybody else that they are only supporting dumb boards? >Won't that be an awful heavy load on the CPU? So-called "smart" board support has been available for a while for 386/ix and SCO XENIX from companies like MICOM/Interlan and Excelan (maybe CMC, too.) Usually, these so-called "smart" boards have limited memory and processing power, placing constraints on the number of virtual circuits you can have active and limiting throughput due to the anemic CPU on the intelligent board. I have mentioned before the problems with routing on multi-homed hosts using such boards. They have an important role, however, since it is rather easy to develop a device-driver interface to such a board which requires minimal changes to a kernel binary distribution. I was involved with moving a protocol stack (not TCP) from a smart board to the OS kernel to solve the embarassing situation of a super- supermini being only able to have 5 virtual circuits active, and those with rather poor throughput compared to what the machine was capable of. An extreme case, but not too far from the truth with today's mini-class 386 systems. Host-based TCP/IP need not impose excessive load on a system. I think the current BSD TCP/IP takes less than 5-10% of the CPU under ordinary use (using many telnetd and rlogind processes may require more, but then, these run on the host CPU with most smart boards too.) The advantage of a host-based protocol stack, assuming the host has richer resources of CPU and memory, is that the protocol suite has a greater "dynamic range" and can respond to demands for additional memory and/or CPU more easily. When a smart board runs out of its 256K of memory or runs out of steam from its processor, you're out of luck. --- Steve Dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu dyer@spdcc.com aka ...!{harvard,linus,ima,m2c,rayssd}!spdcc!dyer
dougm@ico.ISC.COM (Doug McCallum) (12/09/88)
In article <873@applix.UUCP> jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) writes: ... >Interactive 386/ix 1.06 has, and SCO Unix V.3.2 will have, as options, >host based TCP/IP with support for the following dumb ethernet boards: > - Western Digital WD8003 > - Ungermann Bass PC-NIC 2273A (maybe 386/ix only?) > - 3Com 3C501/502/503 > - Micom NI5010 (maybe 386/ix only?) 386/ix TCP/IP under 1.06 currently supports: WD8003* U-B PC-NIC 3C501 and 3C503 (whats a 502?) NI5210 and NI9210 Additional ethernet boards may be supported in the future but these are what we have at the moment.