seeger@iec.ufl.edu (F. L. Charles Seeger III) (05/11/89)
In article <10217@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes: |X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 271, message 13 of 18 | |We were introduced to the new Sun products last week, and I was surprised |to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors.... |Can anyone clue me in to the reason why Sun chose to go this way? |I'm clueless. I was told that it was because Sun wanted these machines to eventually be certified as FCC Class B compliant for RF emissions. Sort of indicates that they want to get into the PC market, I guess. Nevertheless, this is a major pain in the butt for most of their existing sites. It will cost about $200 extra per station to attach to the net. If they haven't fixed their damnable connectors, it will be even worse. Wish I could trade the audio port for a built-in thin-net tranceiver. [Before anyone asks, the WD Ethernet card, for example, only has a Class A rating; I presume that is typical of PC cards with both connector types.] They did a good job of moving local disks inside the box, but then screwed up by requiring an external, clutter-producing tranceiver. A much cleaner design would have allowed for an optional internal tranceiver. BTW, I had a real brainstorm when I learned of this situation a few weeks ago. To wit, attach the transceiver directly to the AUI connector on the back of the cpu (i.e. with no intervening cable). This is sort of feasible if there is enough clearance around the connector, which I don't think is the case on the new Sun desktops, anyway. The connector isn't strong enough to hold the box reliably, though. [mv brainstorm /dev/null] BTWbis, does anyone know of a source of short AUI cables, say about 1m? All I have found are multiples of 5m. Is there some technical reason for that? Regards, Chuck -- Charles Seeger 216 Larsen Hall +1 904 392 8935 Electrical Engineering University of Florida Just say NO to seeger@iec.ufl.edu Gainesville, FL 32611 EtherTalk
bob@cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (05/11/89)
rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf): Can anyone clue me in to the reason why Sun chose to go this way? When we were shown the diagrams for the new desktop machines several months ago (under non-disclosure, and we kept our mouths shut), we observed that they only had a transceiver cable connection and no thin Ethernet BNC connector. It may be to save board space that would have been used in the thin net transceiver. It seems to me that there's some spare acreage over on the back-right near the SCSI adaptor that could be put to advantageous use, but don't trust me on that - our hardware people tremble in fear when they see me with a screwdriver in my hand :-) Anyway, technical issues aside, we asked the representative (a bigwig from MtView, not even the local sales office) why that decision had gone in that direction. He looked surprised, and said that they had asked "several universities" for their preferences and had been told that everyone preferred thick to thin. On the basis of this market research, they proceeded with the thick cable design. By the time we saw the drawings it was clearly far too late to change anything. Will anyone here in Sun-Spots land confess to being one of those universities that were surveyed? Or did Sun just go across the bay to Berkeley and see the transceiver cable bundles that look like Sequoia trunks, and decide that that must be the One True Way? Before we can use the new SparcStations in our environment, we'll have to either buy or build thick-to-thin adaptors that will be another several hundred pieces of expensive, fragile hardware and several hundred more connectors for users in the student labs to kick around. Else, we'll have to buy the S-bus Ethernet card and use the thin net connector on that. Does anyone know whether a diskless SparcStation will boot over its second Ethernet?
smb@arpa.att.com (05/11/89)
I asked why no thinwire. I was told that there's just no room on the board for the integral transceiver; they really packed things tight on the SPARCstation 1. (And why is Sun imitating DEC's names now?) As for why not use just thinwire -- that's much less compatible. If you have an existing thickwire setup, you can't easily put in a single thinwire station; going the other way, though, requires just a transceiver and drop cable. And who knows -- maybe Sun has finally learned how to build the connectors...
grandi@noao.edu (Steve Grandi) (05/11/89)
The Sun folks at the San Francisco product introduction said the decision
to use only a thick Ethernet connector was driven by FCC ``interference''
requirements. The Sun folks claimed that a Class B (suitable for home
use) classification was impossible with a thin-net connector.
Steve Grandi, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ, 602-325-9228
UUCP: {arizona,decvax,ncar}!noao!grandi or uunet!noao.edu!grandi
Internet: grandi@noao.edu SPAN/HEPNET: 5355::GRANDI or NOAO::GRANDIroy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (05/12/89)
I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents about the thick-vs-thin argument. As
I've stated so many times, the thick ethernet connectors just plain suck.
The cable is too stiff and heavy and the connector is too weak. It works
fine in a rack-mount system where there are lots of handy places to lash
the cable down with cable ties, but on a desktop/deskside system, it's
just asking for trouble (and, of course, Sun took a bad design and made it
even worse, with the non-standard mechanical clearances). The single most
common cause of network failures around here is loose tranciever cables.
Not to mention that stringing tranciever cable is a real bitch; not only
is it stiff and heavy, but you have to chop a hole in the wall big enough
to clear the DB-15 on the end, or terminate your own cables (no thanks).
Not to mention that you need your own $300-or-so tranciever for each
workstation.
We're slowly moving towards thin ethernet whenever we have a number of
workstations near enough to each other to make it practical. We have a
thick backbone running around the building (because of the greater cable
length allowed) and wherever we have a clump of 3 or more machines with
thinnet connectors, we daisychain them together and plug them into a DEC
DESPR or similar device (single port thick-to-thin buffered repeater) The
RG-58 (or is it 59?) cable is so much easier to run (and to hide, in
places where it has to look good) and connections are much more solid, in
large part because the cable is so light and flexible.
Not having built-in thin trancievers on our workstations would be a real
problem, adding expense to our configuration and making it less reliable
and convenient.
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@phri.nyu.edu
"The connector is the network"jjb@zeus.cs.wayne.edu (J. Brewster) (05/16/89)
In article <10217@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes: >We were introduced to the new Sun products last week, and I was surprised >to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors. OK, I > [...] >Can anyone clue me in to the reason why Sun chose to go this way? >I'm clueless. I don't claim to know the real reason why Sun went that way. A guess: if you have an AUI port, you can convert to thin easily enough. I've seen little devices which have a DB-15 and a BNC on them. I suppose it's just a small transceiver. However, given a thin Ethernet port, you can't really switch back to an AUI connection. Further, thick Ethernet allows for greater segment lengths than does thin. I like the flexibility of having both (our VAXStation 2000's have a slide switch -- no jumper plug to fool with!), but if I had to choose, I'd choose the AUI port, too. -- J. Brewster | "In this country, everything loose jjb@cs.wayne.edu | rolls to the West Coast." ...!mailrus!wsu-cs!jjb | --Thomas A. Vanderslice, CEO of Apollo
jis@mtgzx.att.com (j.mukerji) (05/17/89)
In article <10217@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes: >We were introduced to the new Sun products last week, and I was surprised >to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors. OK, I [...] >Can anyone clue me in to the reason why Sun chose to go this way? >I'm clueless. I don't know the real reason, but I remember a conversation that I had about a year ago with a Sun technical type. He had asked me "If Sun decided to do away with either the thick Ethernet or the thin Ethernet interface on their desktop boxes which would I be more comfortable with?". My reply to him was, I would be more comfortable with a desktop Sun with no thin Ethernet connector rather than no thick Ethernet connector, because it is not possible to convert to a thick Ethernet connector from a thin one, but vice-versa can be achieved by a little line-powered matchbox device. We happen to use 10BaseT compliant Starlan 10 over twisted pair telephone wiring in our network. In this setup each workstation is connected into the building wiring using a little box called "AUI Adapter" which really is a twisted pair transceiver that plugs directly into the thick Ethernet connector, if you can figure out how to hold it there. In our setup we tend to use a short segment of transceiver cable to hookup the AUI adapters to workstations. Works like the charm. Jishnu Mukerji, mtgzz!jis, jis@mtgzz.att.com +1 201 957 5986 AT&T Bell Laboratories, MT 3K-423, 200 Laurel Ave., Middletown NJ 07748
stpeters@uunet.uu.net (05/17/89)
In article <10217@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes: >I was surprised >to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors. OK, I >agree with going with only 1 port. It means not having to mess with >jumper cables. But why thick?!? Perhaps because thick is a standard (and works), thin is not, and some large customers (e.g. us) would insist on thick. > Everybody seems to have problems with >the thick connectors coming off ... It's long past time to put this to rest (again). For years, we've been converting our Enet connections to holddown connectors similar to RS232 connectors. Supplier of the conversion parts is AMP, Inc. PO Box 3608, mail stop 38-28 Harrisburg, Pa. For making drop cables, AMP part number 1-745172-3 is a metal connector hood that goes on the end of the cable. Part 205817-1 is a kit with 2 posts, washers, and nuts for converting a standard Enet connector like those on Suns to mate with the AMP cable connector. The whole conversion is about $5 per connection. There. Now you too can have to search the building for a screwdriver when you want to disconnect from Enet, but at least your cable won't fall off. In fact, you can use the drop cable to pull the cpu card out of the bus. Dick St.Peters GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com uunet!steinmetz!dawn!stpeters GE would charge for opinions if it could find any. These are mine.
bud@cs.utexas.edu (C. E. "Bud" Spurgeon) (05/18/89)
In article <13779@steinmetz.ge.com> steinmetz!dawn!stpeters@uunet.uu.net writes: >X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 290, message 5 of 13 > >In article <10217@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes: >>I was surprised >>to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors. OK, I >>agree with going with only 1 port. It means not having to mess with >>jumper cables. But why thick?!? Going from thick interface (transceiver cable or "Attachment Unit Interface" (AUI) port) to thin network coax cable is easy enough. You get a thin net transceiver, attach it into your thin net coax with the usual BNC T connector, and attach an AUI cable from the transceiver to your workstation. Going from thin net interface (BNC only, transceiver electronics internal to workstation) to a thick coax network isn't as straightforward. You have to get off the thick coax onto the thin coax so that you'll have thin coax to attach to your workstation. That takes a repeater/bridge to do the job cleanly, or loops of thin Ethernet spliced into your thick net to do the job as a hack. Given the choice, a thick net interface on the wokstation is the more general one to have. >> Everybody seems to have problems with >>the thick connectors coming off ... > >It's long past time to put this to rest (again). For years, we've >been converting our Enet connections to holddown connectors similar to >RS232 connectors. If the SPARC station we had for a demo is any indication, Sun has finally gotten around to building the transceiver connector with the correct number and placement of washers on the posts. The sliding lock hardware on the transceiver cable we used attached firmly to this machine and held very well. Rather than modify all of your machines to be non standard you might want to try the sliding lock connector first, since it appears to be much improved.
nguyen@key.key.com (Chien Nguyen) (05/18/89)
In article <10217@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes: >I was surprised >to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors. OK, I >agree with going with only 1 port. It means not having to mess with >jumper cables. But why thick?!? Most users already have Thicknet installed. For compability issue, providing Thicknet probably is a must for Sun. In addition, the Thinnet transceiver can be incorporated externally and does not have to be in the system. By taking the Thinnet transceiver away from the CPU board (on the new CPUs), the board space is reduced as well as the system cost (believe me, when you want to integrate a lot of features on a small board, every single square mil does count). And for those users that need the Thinnet interface, an external converter which is available from many vendors is a solution. This is a win-win solution for everyone. C. Nguyen email: pacbell!key!nguyen voice mail: (415) 623-2136 Postal mail: AMDAHL/KEY COMPUTER LABS Advance Projects Division 4245 Technology Dr Fremont, Ca 94539 Disclaimer: I neither speak for Sun nor for my current employer. Obviously, it's my opinion.
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (05/22/89)
In article <3771@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: >X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 297, message 5 of 18 >I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents about the thick-vs-thin argument. As >I've stated so many times, the thick ethernet connectors just plain suck. >The cable is too stiff and heavy and the connector is too weak. While I was at Interleaf Canada, we stopped using thick ethernet. Too many critical parts, many of them badly manufactured. Some badly designed (or perhaps I should say redesigned (:-)). After suffering multiple connector failures, we fixed all the drop cables. After lots of tranceiver failures, we started stocking extra EXTRA tranceivers. After oxidation problems started showing up in the taps we sent installation kits (ie, borers) out with the field engineer (all one of him). Finally Jim put his foot down: we don't sell thick ethernets anymore. --dave c-b
jmorton@dgis.daitc.mil (Joe Morton) (05/23/89)
I heard from a Sun rep at the last DC-SLUG meeting that Sun have left off thin ethernet support because it was easier for the SPARCstation to qualify as an FCC class A device (home use) without it. Joe Morton - jmorton@daitc.mil Defense Technical Information Center Special Projects Office (DTIC-SPO) 1800 North Beaureguard Alexandria, VA 22311 (703) 998-4600
abstine@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (05/23/89)
> Most users already have Thicknet installed. For compability issue, > providing Thicknet probably is a must for Sun. In addition, the Thinnet > transceiver can be incorporated externally and does not have to be in the > system. By taking the Thinnet transceiver away from the CPU board (on the > new CPUs), the board space is reduced as well as the system cost (believe > me, when you want to integrate a lot of features on a small board, every > single square mil does count). And for those users that need the Thinnet > interface, an external converter which is available from many vendors is a > solution. This is a win-win solution for everyone. > Most users have Thick? Maybe sites which have had ethernet since the early 80's, but alot more office installations are using thin wire/twisted pair since its alot easier to install. This isn't a win-win situation - it just means that everyone who needs thinwire connectivity must spend another $200 or so to get a clunky cable and thinwire transceiver. Sun screwed up by not providing both as part of the machine. Maybe they should take a cue from DEC and provide both with an external switch to choose the one they want. art stine sr network engineer clarkson u
abstine@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (05/23/89)
Agreed! The keyboard sucks! The delete and backspace are so confuse if you have to use the old and new keyboards together! All the "stty dec" screws up! Simon princeton!hhb!simon
hess@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Caleb Hess) (05/24/89)
For everyone who's complaining about not being able to plug a new Sun into a thinwire net, here are two options that we are using successfully: 1) I am writing this on a 386i (thickwire transceiver port only) which is connected to a thinwire net via a 3Com 3C100 transceiver and two BNC-female-to-N-male coax adapters (UG-201A/U, Amphenol 31-216). 2) We also are using several DESTAs from DEC that do the same thing without the adapters.
lance@kodak.com (Dan Lance) (05/25/89)
In article <8905180115.AA03696@saigon.key.com> nguyen@key.key.com (Chien Nguyen) writes: >In article <10217@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf@oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes: >>I was surprised >>to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors. OK, I >>agree with going with only 1 port. It means not having to mess with >>jumper cables. But why thick?!? > >Most users already have Thicknet installed. This is a gross generalization; for many people, it is just plain wrong. Thick Ethernet is expensive to purchase and install and difficult to modify; modifications to a thick Ethernet setup often need to be done by trained people. Thin Ethernet is cheap to purchase and install and easy to modify. I cannot touch our thick Ethernet cables, so I need to go through our corporate telecom people, who are expensive, slow and inefficient. In contrast, I can string thin cable around the office quickly and inexpensively. Even though many people have thick netowrks installed, their lack of flexibility makes them less attractive for the office environment -- which is where most 3/80s and SPARCstation 1s will go. Or do yours sit in machine rooms with raised floors? >For compability issue, >providing Thicknet probably is a must for Sun. "Probably is a must." I love it. You must have taken writing lessons from my management. >In addition, the Thinnet >transceiver can be incorporated externally and does not have to be in the >system. By taking the Thinnet transceiver away from the CPU board (on the >new CPUs), the board space is reduced as well as the system cost (believe >me, when you want to integrate a lot of features on a small board, every >single square mil does count). The Ethernet interface is the most important interface on the machine in most cases. (Perhaps they should have left the sound port off to allow a thin transceiver.) In any case, pleading "well, we don't have enough board space" is not an acceptable reason for leaving off a feature as needed as the thin transceiver. Cost is also not a factor. The hardware needed to convert from thich to thin is more expensive than the incremental cost of a thin transceiver on the CPU board. >And for those users that need the Thinnet >interface, an external converter which is available from many vendors is a >solution. This is a win-win solution for everyone. So you save $200 or so on the workstation and then spend far more than that to connect it to your thin Ethernet network. Since many more people use thin cable in offices than thick cable, the nice small workstation that you like so much must now have a stiff assembly of brain-damaged cables and converters hanging off of the back of it to connect it to the thin cable your old 3/50 used. "Win-win solutions" like this I don't need. >C. Nguyen >email: pacbell!key!nguyen >Disclaimer: I neither speak for Sun nor for my current employer. Obviously, >it's my opinion. You can have it, too. drl Daniel R. Lance / Eastman Kodak Company / drl@kodak.com
young@ll-vlsi.arpa (George Young) (05/25/89)
There has been a lot of talk on comp.sys.sun about how "you can't hook a
machine with only a thinnet port to a thick cable". I am bewildered, since we
have been doing this for about a year with no (perceived) ill effects. We
have a thick cable running through our labs, with various suns attached.
Those with only thicknet ports use the usual external transceiver and drop
cable. Those with thinnet ports are connected directly to the thick cable
with a "type N" to BNC adapter. Is this practice contrary to the standard, or
likely to fail (how?), or just basicly evil?
____________________+==============+__________________
thicknet cable | type "N" T |
--------------------+====+ +====+------------------
| |
+----+
| | <-- type "N" to BNC adapter
\____/
| |
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sun 3/60 thinnet port
Yes, the mechanical connection is not ideal, having a heavy thick-cable
hanging off of a little BNC connector, but we have had no problems. The
adapter adds only 28mm to the stem of the T compared to a thinnet connection.
George Young, Rm. B-141 young@ll-vlsi.arpa
MIT Lincoln Laboratory young@vlsi.ll.mit.edu
244 Wood St. [10.1.0.10]
Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 (617) 981-2756prem@crackle.amd.com (Prem Sobel) (06/14/89)
In article <3518@kalliope.rice.edu> jmorton@dgis.daitc.mil (Joe Morton) writes: >I heard from a Sun rep at the last DC-SLUG meeting that Sun have left >off thin ethernet support because it was easier for the SPARCstation to >qualify as an FCC class A device (home use) without it. We tried using our Suns on thin ethernet and it was very unrealiable. The internal transciever is used and it doesn't get enought current to properly sense the net, was the explanation the CE gave us. Prem
robinson@boone.med.unc.edu (Gerard A. Robinson) (06/19/89)
In addition to the business about the Sparcstation needing to qualify as a FCC Class B (home) device; our local SE also pointed out that it allows the user to connect up to ANY type of ethernet, there now being 3 (thin, thick and twisted :-).
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (06/22/89)
In article <3917@kalliope.rice.edu> robinson@boone.med.unc.edu (Gerard | A. Robinson) writes: In addition to the business about the | Sparcstation needing to qualify as a FCC Class B (home) device; our | local SE also pointed out that it allows the user to connect up to | ANY type of ethernet, there now being 3 (thin, >thick and twisted :-). That may be so, but I don't exactly see a plethora of small, inexpensive tranceivers that I can attach to the back of a 3/80... (ie, Is this claim verifiable?) --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.