yahnke@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke, MACC) (09/28/89)
I'm looking for advice in setting up a mac network for a student lab. We'll need about 60 Macs to serve all the students. They will be running MacPascal and some Fortran program almost exclusively. I hope to have them using LaserWriters. I know that LocalTalk, (and especially PhoneNET) is much cheaper than Ethernet. I'm wondering if it would pay to use Ethernet, tho. Let's say we have 15 Mac SEs hooked up to one Mac SE/30 as server, using PhoneNET and AppleShare. The Mac SEs *will not* have hard disks; this will prevent virus transmission and make the macs unappealling to non lab users to use, (it's an open access lab, anybody could walk thru and we have problems now with non lab people using the current mac pluses w/hard disks. Too many viruses and too many purloined copies of MS-Word floating about). So lab users will have to boot off of floppies, no big deal. We repeat this setup 4 times and therefore have 60 macs w/four servers. Would 15 nodes trying to run an application like MacPascal hopelessly bog down the SE/30? Would spending $600 extra for an Ethernet card make things more responsive? After looking at the May 89 issue of MacUser that discusses this my genereal impression is that Ethernet wouldn't help that much, but the fast SE/30 would. Using DaynaTALK would help even more and still be cheaper than Ethernet. My main concern is that the net not become totally unusable when it is being fully utilized, which will happen a lot. Any comments are much appreciated. >>> Internet: yahnke@macc.wisc.edu <<< >>> Mille voix chuchottent <<c'est vrai>> <<<
evan@brazos.rice.EDU (Evan Wetstone) (09/28/89)
In article <2476@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>, yahnke@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke, MACC) writes: > I'm looking for advice in setting up a mac network for a student > lab. We'll need about 60 Macs to serve all the students. They > will be running MacPascal and some Fortran program almost > exclusively. I hope to have them using LaserWriters. > > I know that LocalTalk, (and especially PhoneNET) is much cheaper > than Ethernet. I'm wondering if it would pay to use Ethernet, tho. > > Let's say we have 15 Mac SEs hooked up to one Mac SE/30 as server, > using PhoneNET and AppleShare. The Mac SEs *will not* have hard > disks; this will prevent virus transmission and make the macs > unappealling to non lab users to use, (it's an open access lab, > anybody could walk thru and we have problems now with non lab > people using the current mac pluses w/hard disks. Too many > viruses and too many purloined copies of MS-Word floating about). This sounds amazingly similar to what we have done at Rice. Here's our setup: We have about 50 Mac II's with 2 floppies each (no hard disks for the same reasons you mention above) all hooked together using LocalTalk. This is hooked up to a Kinetics KFPS-2 running KIP. We run the CAP aufs code to run a public AppleShare off of a Sun 3. > So lab users will have to boot off of floppies, no big deal. > We repeat this setup 4 times and therefore have 60 macs w/four > servers. Would 15 nodes trying to run an application like > MacPascal hopelessly bog down the SE/30? Would spending $600 > extra for an Ethernet card make things more responsive? Here's what we discovered: Performance was bad. Real Bad. It appears that the major bottleneck is LocalTalk, which runs at 230Kbs. We are purchasing EtherTalk cards for all of the Mac II's to eliminate this bottleneck. We are also purchasing some Mac II's with hard drives to act as file servers so we can stop using aufs. Hopefully we will see some improvements. I firmly believe that 15 nodes trying to launch MacPascal off of a single SE/30 will force the SE/30 to its knees and possibly all the way to a meltdown........;-) > After looking at the May 89 issue of MacUser that discusses > this my genereal impression is that Ethernet wouldn't help > that much, but the fast SE/30 would. Using DaynaTALK would > help even more and still be cheaper than Ethernet. > > My main concern is that the net not become totally unusable > when it is being fully utilized, which will happen a lot. > Any comments are much appreciated. Using the setup you describe above, I think that during peak usage, the network will grind to a halt. Anyway, I would be interested in hearing what you finally decide to do. ---- Evan R. Wetstone Internet: evan@rice.edu Network and Systems Support BITNET: evan@ricevm1 Rice University, Houston TX
MacUserLabs@cup.portal.com (Stephan - Somogyi) (10/01/89)
yahnke@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Ross Yahnke, MACC) writes: >I know that LocalTalk, (and especially PhoneNET) is much cheaper than >Ethernet. I'm wondering if it would pay to use Ethernet, tho. > >Let's say we have 15 Mac SEs hooked up to one Mac SE/30 as server, >using PhoneNET and AppleShare. > ... >We repeat this setup 4 times and therefore have 60 macs w/four >servers. Would 15 nodes trying to run an application like MacPascal >hopelessly bog down the SE/30? Ethernet would speed up data transfer between the server and the workstation as well as be able to handle much more traffic. In this case I don't think the net would be the bottleneck, the server would (provided the net is designed properly). PLUG: The piece I did on enhanced LocalTalk in the October issue should also give you a bit more food for thought as far as which net to go with. Hope this helps. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Stephan Somogyi MacUserLabs@cup.portal.com NetWorkShop Coord. or MacUser ...{apple|uunet|sun}!cup.portal.com!MacUserLabs Stay alert, trust no-one, keep your laser handy. Any opinions expressed above are mine.
MacUserLabs@cup.portal.com (Stephan - Somogyi) (10/01/89)
evan@brazos.rice.EDU (Evan Wetstone) writes: >We have about 50 Mac II's with 2 floppies each (no hard disks for the >same reasons you mention above) all hooked together using LocalTalk. >... >Performance was bad. Real Bad. It is unclear whether you have all these 50 Macs on the same LocalTalk net, or whether they're subdivided with routers between them. If they're all on the same net with only a single way of getting at the Sun, I'm not surprised in the least that your performance is non-existant. LocalTalk was not designed for this kind of load. Splitting a LT net into zones with one server per zone will make LT *much* nicer. Most of the time, when people complain about LT being too slow, it's beacuse their net isn't designed well. LT is quite forgiving with a low node count, but the more nodes you have, the more thought you have to put into net design. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Stephan Somogyi MacUserLabs@cup.portal.com NetWorkShop Coord. or MacUser ...{apple|uunet|sun}!cup.portal.com!MacUserLabs Stay alert, trust no-one, keep your laser handy. Any opinions expressed above are mine.