hayes@Apple.COM (Jim Hayes) (08/17/90)
Regarding the Apple Internet Router, Wolfgang Naegeli (wnn@ornl.gov) writes: >How limited is the throughput if I run it on a IIfx? I suspect it might >beat a FastPath, GatorBox, or MultiGate. LocalTalk to LocalTalk -and- LocalTalk to EtherTalk -and- LocalTalk to TokenTalk on the Mac IIx *and above* route at the same speeds. This is simply because LocalTalk is the bottleneck, so an fx is probably overkill here... You get about 12k/sec routing LocalTalk to LocalTalk You get about 22k/sec routing LocalTalk to TokenTalk you get about 23k/sec routing LocalTalk to Ethernet The ONLY tangible improvement the IIfx gives you is better interactive performance if you have a router running in the background. This is because the IIfx uses one of its dedicated I/O processors to do all the LocalTalk transmission instead of the 68030. You start to see some speed improvement when you start routing EtherTalk and TokenTalk. Since the TokenTalk card has its own on board I/O processor, you won't see much improvement from a Mac IIx and up. Perhaps 3k/sec more as the processor can set stuff up faster. You get about 70-80k/sec routing TokenTalk to TokenTalk For Ethertalk, the difference is quite significant. You get about 100-105k/sec routing TokenTalk to EtherTalk on the IIx and above. EtherTalk-EtherTalk: Mac II: ~160k/sec. (We use lots of these at Apple) Mac IIx/cx ~175k/sec. Mac IIci ~200k/sec. (We use some of these at Apple) Mac IIfx ~250k/sec. The above numbers are unofficial maximum performance measures. You milage may vary. --- Several major high-performance router manufacturers have announced support for AppleTalk routing in their products. If your network already has high-performance routers, adding AppleTalk support should just be a software upgrade away... This is by far the cheapest way to add AppleTalk to an existing high-performance network. -- Jim Hayes, AppleTalk-TCP/IP Weenie Advanced Technology Group, Apple Computer Inc. Inet: hayes@apple.com UUCP: {amdcad|decwrl|ames}!apple!hayes
wnn@ornl.gov (Wolfgang N. Naegeli) (08/20/90)
In article <66709@coherent.coherent.com> dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) writes: > In article <1990Aug9.134900.215@cs.utk.edu> wnn@ornl.gov (Wolfgang N. Naegeli -- that's me! --) writes: > > > And there is another missing link: TCP/IP routing and AppleTalk in UDP > > tunneling support by the Apple Internet Router! > > The Apple folks who discussed the Internet Router at the WWDC were asked > about this. Their response was along the lines of "No... the Apple > Internet Router is designed as a basic, limited-throughput router to get > people started. We view tunnelling, high-throughput dedicated routers, > and so forth as appropriate markets for third-party developers." ----- In article <44035@apple.Apple.COM> hayes@Apple.COM (Jim Hayes) writes referring to my response to the above: > Regarding the Apple Internet Router, Wolfgang Naegeli (wnn@ornl.gov) writes: > > >How limited is the throughput if I run it on a IIfx? I suspect it might > >beat a FastPath, GatorBox, or MultiGate. > > LocalTalk to LocalTalk -and- > LocalTalk to EtherTalk -and- > LocalTalk to TokenTalk on the Mac IIx *and above* route at the same speeds. > This is simply because LocalTalk is the bottleneck, so an fx is probably > overkill here... > > You get about 12k/sec routing LocalTalk to LocalTalk > You get about 22k/sec routing LocalTalk to TokenTalk > you get about 23k/sec routing LocalTalk to Ethernet Well, if LocalTalk is the bottleneck, then dedicated hardware boxes can't overcome it either, i.e. Apple's argument that they don't offer tunneling in UDP (IPTalk) because they want to leave the high-performance field to others, falls apart. Jim goes on to give some figures that show that the IIfx does make a diffference in Ethertalk to Ethertalk routing, though not quite as much as one might expect from less-specific published information about its performance. My argument all along has been, that in situations where wide connectivity for relatively low traffic is needed, an Apple Internet Router supporting TCP/IP routing and perhaps running in the background of an AppleShare cum QuickMail server would be a very flexible and cost-effective solution. We have such needs, and I would be surprised if there weren't many other places out there for whom this would be an ideal solution too, and that Apple is shortsighted not offering it. It appears that Network Resources Corp. thinks so too. I'll look into MultiGate Mac, and I hope it is as versatile in other respects as Apple's Internet Router. Wolfgang N. Naegeli Internet: wnn@ornl.gov Bitnet: wnn@ornlstc Phone: 615-574-6143 Fax: 615-574-6141 QuickMail (QM-QM): Wolfgang Naegeli @ 615-574-4510 Snail: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6206