lui@CS.UCLA.EDU (04/12/88)
We are connecting our VAXes to our Macintoshes through the very popular
Kinetics FastPath gateway box. I'm comparing the two popular software
packages made by Alisa Systems and Pacer. We have a cluster of an 11/780
and an 8350, plus a LPS-40 Laser Printer.
Does anyone have any comments about either system? The LPS-40 is an
ethernet based printer; one of our main objectives is to make this
printer available to our Macintoshes.
Stephen Lui
UCLA Department of Computer Science and
System Manager
Hughes Aircraft Company
Radar Systems Group
Physical Address:
Centinela Ave. & Teale St.
Culver City, CA.
(213) 305-2085
Mailing Address:
Hughes Aircraft Company
M/S RC R49 2563
P.O. Box 92426
Los Angeles, CA
90009-2426
ARPA: lui@cs.ucla.edu
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!lui
Stephen Lui
ARPA: lui@cs.ucla.edu
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!luibmh@demon.siemens-rtl (Beatrice M Hwong) (04/12/88)
In article <11134@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lui@CS.UCLA.EDU (Stephen Lui) writes: >We are connecting our VAXes to our Macintoshes through the very popular >Kinetics FastPath gateway box. I'm comparing the two popular software >packages made by Alisa Systems and Pacer. We have a cluster of an 11/780 >and an 8350, plus a LPS-40 Laser Printer. > >Does anyone have any comments about either system? The LPS-40 is an >ethernet based printer; one of our main objectives is to make this >printer available to our Macintoshes. > > Please post the results. I think it is of general interest to all who are concerned with Mac-VAX connectivity. Beatrice M. Hwong Siemens RTL 105 College Rd E. Princeton, N.J. 08540 609-734-3384 bmh%demon.siemens.com@princeton.edu
garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett) (04/13/88)
In article <11134@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lui@CS.UCLA.EDU (Stephen Lui) writes: >We are connecting our VAXes to our Macintoshes through the very popular >Kinetics FastPath gateway box. I'm comparing the two popular software >packages made by Alisa Systems and Pacer. I'm in the process of doing the same thing for my employer. >Does anyone have any comments about either system? I've only had a chance to dig into AlisaTalk so far, as I am still waiting for a PacerShare beta tape (yes, it's an announced product, but it's still in beta, I guess that's come to be the norm) I ran into a few problems getting both packages to run at first (partially due to incomplete installation instructions, partially due to voodoo system problems) One note to users of Wollongong WIN/TCP who want to get AlisaTalk or PacerLink: If you are using the dedicated DEUNA driver for WIN/TCP, you're going to need to call Wollongong and tell them you need to use the shared DEUNA/DEQNA driver. This isn't a big deal, all you need to do is get a new key from TWG, which they'll read you over the phone, and then re-link the inet stuff to include the shared DEUNA driver. After this, just edit your startinet.com file and the syconfig.com file and you're all set - For the dedicated deuna driver, sysgen leaves out the XE driver while autoconfiguring the system at boot time and both AlisaTalk and PacerLink need this. Before I got this driver change from Wollongong, I tried installing AlisaTalk with WIN/TCP not running. For some reason the appletalk/vms bridge process was unable to get the deuna's ethernet address and therefore was responding to AppleTalk ARPs by saying "My ethernet address is FF.FF.FF.FF.FF.FF," which is an ethernet broadcast address - not good. This caused on the order of about 10-20 ethernet broadcast packets per second to flood the net while I was using the AlisaTalk file server. Once I had the shared DEUNA WIN/TCP up and running this problem mysteriously went away. Both Alisa and Pacer provide printer spooling software that takes advantage of VMS queuing services, AlisaPrint and PacerPrint. Alisa also provides a DEC printing package that will allow Mac users to access the LPS-40 and the LN03-R. I haven't dug much into that package, as we don't have any DEC printers at our site. I do know that the LPS-40 supports most of the things that a LaserWriter can do (not including smoothing though, apple handles that with 68000 code embedded in the postscript - or so I hear) The one big difference I see between the two printing systems is how they handle LaserWriters or other LocalTalk-connected printers. AlisaPrint allows you to leave your printers out on the LocalTalk net where they can still be accessible to Mac users if the VAX should crash or have to be shut down for PM, etc. PacerPrint requires that the LaserWriters be connected directly to the VAX with serial connections. Granted, this solution probably yields the best performance, but you lose a little flexibility in where you can connect your printers. As far as overall performance is concerned, Alisa's stuff seems to be a little slower than Pacer's (all results aren't in, this test isn't complete) which might be attributed to the way they implement their system, which appears more flexible. That's about all I've gotten so far - once AppleShare compatiblity is available for both systems which should be in the near future (but how near? :-) the file servers for both systems will be greatly improved. Joel Garrett Research Associate CCM University of Delaware Newark, De 19716 garrett@udel-ccm.arpa
bmh@demon.siemens-rtl (Beatrice M Hwong) (04/14/88)
In article <2044@louie.udel.EDU> garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett) writes: >In article <11134@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> lui@CS.UCLA.EDU (Stephen Lui) writes: >>We are connecting our VAXes to our Macintoshes through the very popular >>Kinetics FastPath gateway box. I'm comparing the two popular software >>packages made by Alisa Systems and Pacer. > > >>Does anyone have any comments about either system? > > >As far as overall performance is concerned, Alisa's stuff seems to be a >little slower than Pacer's (all results aren't in, this test isn't complete) >which might be attributed to the way they implement their system, which >appears more flexible. There is a comparison of AlisaTalk, PacerShare, and CommUnity in Digital Review (February 8, 1988) on p70. The comparisons show that the Pacer is either equal or faster than the other two using either EtherTalk or FastPath. A disadvantage of Alisa is that it does not maintain HFS. Experience here has been with PacerLink which needed a couple of minor revisions before it was working as promised. Our PacerLink ties Ultrix on a Vax8600 to Appletalk. Beatrice M. Hwong Siemens RTL 105 College Rd E Princeton, N.J. 08540 609-734-3384 bmh%demon.siemens.com@princeton.edu
MANAGER@SKIDMORE.BITNET (Leo Geoffrion) (04/15/88)
bmh%demon.siemens.com@princeton.edu writes: >There is a comparison of AlisaTalk, PacerShare, and CommUnity in Digital >Review (February 8, 1988) on p70. The comparisons show that the Pacer is >either equal or faster than the other two using either EtherTalk or FastPath. >A disadvantage of Alisa is that it does not maintain HFS. >Experience here has been with PacerLink which needed a couple of minor >revisions > before it was working as promised. Our PacerLink ties Ultrix on a Vax8600 to >Appletalk. The edition of Alisa reviewed in that magazine is the old version which was not HFS compatible. At DEXPO, they were demonstrating their new version which is fully AppleShare & HFS compatible. This version is in Beta testing and is supposted to be shipping in May or June according to the reps' at DEXPO. We've been trying to decide between the two products for a while now, too. Based on the literature that we've seen, we are leaning toward Alisa (the new version...) for the following reasons: 1. It fully implements AppleShare for VMS, while Pacer uses proprietary code. We fear that adopting Pacer may hurt us as other companies begin to implement Appleshare/VMS gateways. Since AS for VMS is being promoted by Apple as a standard format, I'd prefer to go with standards. 2. Alisa uses a single VMS process to handle all file service requests, while Pacer creates a new process for each connection. With a community of about 25 Mac's on our network, I'm not eager to see 25 or more VMS processes consuming memory and other resources -- particulary since our VAX computers are the older models that don't have lots of capacity. Besides which, as any VMS system manager will attest, VMS does a poor job of creating and winding down processes. I'm not eager to incur that overhead needlessly. 3. Pacer's pricing is out of sight. Since they set their fees based on the number of simultaneous users, it gets expensive very very fast. Back in the days, when Pacer was mainly a file transfer package, a per-user rate was tolerable since only a minority of users would be uploading simultaneously. On the other hand, when doing file service, users are more likely to link up and stay attached all day. Then, I can easily have 30+ simultaneous users, Alisa's flat fee seems more realistic for file service where many users stay attached for long periods. During those periods, most processing is local to the Mac, with occasional file requests to the VAX as documents are saved, etc. Standard disclosure: I don't get paid by Alisa or Pacer to say these things. Our impressions are based on discussions with sales rep's and brief reviews at trade shows. We have not installed wither package at our site. We hope to do so later this summer, however. =================================================================== Leo D. Geoffrion BITNET: MANAGER@SKIDMORE.BITNET Associate Director for NYNEX: (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2628 Academic Computing Skidmore College Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
krauskpf@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (04/15/88)
If you have WIN/TCP on your VAX, then NCSA Telnet and CAP could be your best alternatives. Pacer and Alisa haven't caught up in the terminal emulator department yet. Tim Krauskopf NCSA timk@ncsa.uiuc.edu
garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett) (04/18/88)
In article <66000018@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> krauskpf@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >If you have WIN/TCP on your VAX, then NCSA Telnet and CAP could >be your best alternatives. Pacer and Alisa haven't caught up >in the terminal emulator department yet. > >Tim Krauskopf >NCSA >timk@ncsa.uiuc.edu This is exactly what we are planning on doing - at least for terminal services. However, for file server/laserwriter support, you are going to need more than WIN/TCP - you'll probably need Eunice BSD 4.3, and even that might need work. Might it be possible to build the CAP/Aufs/lwsrv under Eunice and then run the result under the REX program that comes with WIN/TCP? I looked into doing something similar for getting tn3270 under VMS but all parties said that there were problems with this approach (I.e. the stuff would look for Eunice-related gbl sections that aren't loaded with REX) Joel Garrett Research Associate CCM University of Delaware garrett@udel.edu
kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) (04/19/88)
> We've been trying to decide between the two products for a while now, too. >Based on the literature that we've seen, we are leaning toward Alisa (the new >version...) for the following reasons: > > 1. It fully implements AppleShare for VMS, while Pacer uses proprietary > code. We fear that adopting Pacer may hurt us as other companies > begin to implement Appleshare/VMS gateways. Since AS for VMS is > being promoted by Apple as a standard format, I'd prefer to go with > standards. We were in a similar quandry. We chose Pacer. Here are a few of the reasons. Pacer fully implements Appleshare for VMS, and as far as I can tell, does it better than Alisa does. They use the Apple client software on the Mac, without modification. Also, they use the NATIVE VMS file structure. This has two results: speed, and transparency. You can use your Mac to look at your VMS file structure. Note that the version Pacer is shipping now is BETA. It wass announced BEFORE Alisa's, so I would suspect that there's is, too. Their Virtual Disk server software, on the other hand, has been out for some time. > 2. Alisa uses a single VMS process to handle all file service requests, > while Pacer creates a new process for each connection. With a community > of about 25 Mac's on our network, I'm not eager to see 25 or more > VMS processes consuming memory and other resources -- particulary > since our VAX computers are the older models that don't have lots > of capacity. Besides which, as any VMS system manager will attest, > VMS does a poor job of creating and winding down processes. I'm > not eager to incur that overhead needlessly. On the other hand, this almost certainly translates to better speed of service. I guess you get what you pay for; you can't expect premium service on overloaded equipment. > 3. Pacer's pricing is out of sight. Since they set their fees based > on the number of simultaneous users, it gets expensive very very > fast. Back in the days, when Pacer was mainly a file transfer package, > a per-user rate was tolerable since only a minority of users would > be uploading simultaneously. On the other hand, when doing file > service, users are more likely to link up and stay attached all day. > Then, I can easily have 30+ simultaneous users, Alisa's flat fee > seems more realistic for file service where many users stay attached > for long periods. During those periods, most processing is local > to the Mac, with occasional file requests to the VAX as documents > are saved, etc. I definitely do _not_ agree. I think you will find that Tops (they've announced a Mac file server due out later this year), Alisa, and Pacer all have comparable prices for a comparable number of users, at least in the 30- user ballbark. While you have a point regarding inactivity, a per-user license allows sites to tailor the cost to the number of people who will _actually_ _use_ the facility, rather than than saying "your VAX will support 100 users, therefore you must pay for 100 users". Other considerations: a) Pacer runs on VAX/VMS, most Unix systems, Primes, Crays, and others. It supports both Macintoshes and PCs. It runs over Ethernet, Appletalk, and RS232. b) TSSnet, which is now sold by Alisa (I believe it's a separate package, and NOT cheap) supports VMS mail to Macs, among other DECnetish things. I don't know the details. One thing I have found; it's like walking on quicksand trying to get a complete, accurate picture of things. They keep changing, but they're never quite good enough! /kenw
cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) (04/20/88)
In article <66000018@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> krauskpf@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >be your best alternatives. Pacer and Alisa haven't caught up >in the terminal emulator department yet. > >Tim Krauskopf The above is wrong for the Alisa package. It supports Alisaterminal which is a resource which gives Versaterm, Versterm-pro, or MAC-240 the capability to remote login from the mac to the VMS host. It uses CTERM protocols (VMS SET HOST XXX) and is MUCH more efficient then the NCSA telnet program TO A VMS MACHINE. It is also completely compatible with NCSA telnet to TCP/IP machines. We run Alisa for our VMS machines, and use NCSA telnet to the unix boxes and for arpanet access. I recommend BOTH NCSA telnet and Alisa. -ed cetron center for engineering design university of utah cetron@cs.utah.edu
derek@gucis.oz (Derek Austin) (04/23/88)
The article referenced above talks about improvements in a forthcoming release of AlisaTalk. I believe other disadvantages of AlisaTalk relative to PacerLink are: 1. No support for standard VMS security 2. Spooled LaserWriters must be on LocalTalk rather than on the VAX Are these things fixed in the new version? Also, does anyone have any comments to make on PacerLink installation on VMS. I have been having trouble getting the Kinetics side of things to work on two different VAXes for reasons that the distributor here is unable to explain. Anyone? derek
garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett) (04/25/88)
In article <607@gucis.oz> derek@gucis.oz (Derek Austin) writes: >The article referenced above talks about improvements in a forthcoming >release of AlisaTalk. > >I believe other disadvantages of AlisaTalk relative to PacerLink are: > > 1. No support for standard VMS security > AlisaShare, Alisa Systems' AppleShare-compatible system, will support mappings into the standard VMS protection system much like PacerShare currently does. However, be aware, that there are many more permutations/ combinations of protections in VMS than are allowable in an AppleShare/VMS mapping. > > 2. Spooled LaserWriters must be on LocalTalk rather than on the VAX > Hmmm, maybe the DEC printing support package will also work for Serially- connected LaserWriters... I'll have to ask the tech people at Alisa Systems... > >Also, does anyone have any comments to make on PacerLink installation on >VMS. I have been having trouble getting the Kinetics side of things to work >on two different VAXes for reasons that the distributor here is unable to >explain. Anyone? > Well, this realy depends upon how you want to configure the gateway box. Are you, perchance, wanting to set up to run the combined gateway code, (allows the box to route IP as well as AppleTalk-on-Ethernet) or just the AppleTalk-Ethernet stuff? Configuring for combined operation can be tricky. Your description is pretty general, so one really can't make much of a diagnosis on that. Joel
cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) (04/29/88)
In article <607@gucis.oz> derek@gucis.oz (Derek Austin) writes: > 1. No support for standard VMS security fixed (near as I can tell) in the appleshare version > 2. Spooled LaserWriters must be on LocalTalk rather than on the VAX I consider this a PLUS, on our microvaxen, the throughput is MUCH greater through the ether then over a serial line. And it allows the macs to bypass the spoolers and go right to the printers if desired (which is VERY useful when changing laserwriter names as equipment fails or is replaced) -ed cetron center for engineering design university of utah. ps. the biggest plus that I see with Alisa is that they support STANDARD MAC APPLESHARE CLIENT SOFTWARE, and they use standard ethertalk throught the kinetics. As I understand it, Pacer uses some sort of proprietary client software....
kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) (05/01/88)
>ps. the biggest plus that I see with Alisa is that they support STANDARD MAC >APPLESHARE CLIENT SOFTWARE, and they use standard ethertalk throught the >kinetics. As I understand it, Pacer uses some sort of proprietary client >software.... Nope. Pacer uses the standard Apple client software, too, exactly as it comes from Apple. What's more, Pacer's _server_ software on VMS uses the VMS _NATIVE_ file structure, as opposed to those big virtual disks files that Alias uses. This provides significant advantages in terms of performance, user interface, and security. => You use standard Appleshare to manipulate your VMS directory structure. <= I believe Alisa requires special (not yet released) software to do this. Your impression is probably based on Pacer's _old_ server software, which, having been around a while, supports BOTH Macs AND PCs on VMS, Unix, PRIMOS, and Crays. It was in use long before Appleshare was even announced, let alone delivered. It uses a special protocol which functions over real Ethernet, Appletalk, and RS232 serial links. /kenw A L B E R T A Ken Wallewein R E S E A R C H kenw@noah.arc.cdn C O U N C I L
garrett@udel.EDU (Joel Garrett) (05/02/88)
In article <1396*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) writes: >>ps. the biggest plus that I see with Alisa is that they support STANDARD MAC >>APPLESHARE CLIENT SOFTWARE, and they use standard ethertalk throught the >>kinetics. As I understand it, Pacer uses some sort of proprietary client >>software.... > > Nope. Pacer uses the standard Apple client software, too, exactly as it >comes from Apple. What's more, Pacer's _server_ software on VMS uses the VMS >_NATIVE_ file structure, as opposed to those big virtual disks files that >Alias uses. This provides significant advantages in terms of performance, user >interface, and security. Alisa's forthcoming AppleShare server, AlisaShare, also uses the Standard Apple client software and a VMS native file structure. I know, it isn't available as a 1.0 product yet, but then again neither is PacerShare - offically at least - it is still in Beta. > => You use standard Appleshare to manipulate your VMS directory structure. <= >I believe Alisa requires special (not yet released) software to do this. AlisaShare won't need anything like this either. I kind of doubt if Alisa will support their old way of doing things once this is released. Joel
cetron@utah-cs.UUCP (Edward J Cetron) (05/02/88)
In article <1396*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) writes: > > Nope. Pacer uses the standard Apple client software, too, exactly as it >comes from Apple. What's more, Pacer's _server_ software on VMS uses the VMS >_NATIVE_ file structure, as opposed to those big virtual disks files that >Alias uses. This provides significant advantages in terms of performance, user >interface, and security. This is very bizarre? If the above is true, then: 1. why is Pacer trying to sell use SEPARATE client software. (at significant cost to us) 2. Why does Pacer discuss tcp/ip style sockets when explaining why their software conflicts with Telnet. 3. Why does my version of Alisashare work just fine with the NATIVE VMS file structure.... I always new Canada was different :-) -ed cetron@cs.utah.edu
kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein) (05/06/88)
>In article <1396*kenw@noah.arc.cdn> kenw@noah.arc.CDN (Ken Wallewein)writes: >> >> Nope. Pacer uses the standard Apple client software, too, exactly as it >>comes from Apple. What's more, Pacer's _server_ software on VMS uses theVMS >>_NATIVE_ file structure, as opposed to those big virtual disks files that >>Alias uses. This provides significant advantages in terms of performance,user >>interface, and security. > > This is very bizarre? If the above is true, then: > > 1. why is Pacer trying to sell use SEPARATE client software. (at > significant cost to us) > > 2. Why does Pacer discuss tcp/ip style sockets when explaining why > their software conflicts with Telnet. > > 3. Why does my version of Alisashare work just fine with the NATIVE > VMS file structure.... > >I always new Canada was different :-) > >-ed >cetron@cs.utah.edu Oh, it is, it is :-) But let's get something cleared up here. This much is certain: a) Both Alisa and Pacer have well-established NON-Appleshare file/disk service products. Neither of those used the native VAX/VMS directory structure to represent the Macintosh directory structure. b) Both Alisa and Pacer now have Appleshare file server HOST software which runs under VAX/VMS, supporting _Apple's_ CLIENT software on the Macintosh. When we refer to these products, let's be clear about the category of server to which we are referring. Now... 1. Pacer's older product, pcLink, uses a single VAX file to represent a Macintosh HFS volume. It requires special software on both the VAX and the Mac. Alisa's older product is similar, except that, last I heard, it does not properly support HFS. I doubt many people will care much longer. 2. pcLink runs over either Appletalk, Ethernet (your choice of protocol: Pacer's custom PNP, or TCP/IP) or RS232 (not sure about the protocol there). This provides support for both 'virtual disk' and (due to some device driver magic) high-speed terminal connections. It also works, as I said before, with both Macs and (ugh) MS-DOS engines, served by VMX/VMS, Unix, Primos, etc. PacerShare, on the other hand, uses EtherTalk, Macs to VMS only. 3. What does 'just fine' mean? Do Mac files coexist in the same directories as your VMS files, with AlisaShare? They do with PacerShare. Do they look any different from your VMS files, aside from the icons? They don't with PacerShare. The PacerShare SERVER uses the VMS _directory_ and file structures _directly_. It maintains a desktop subdirectory in each VAX directory, to contain Mac-specific information about the files in that directory/folder. There's no other distinction between Mac and VMS files. When I started to use the Mac to do VMS directory maintenance, the first thing I did was make a lot of new directory/folders, and categorize things better. It's a nice interface, but it's not QUITE transparent. All the VAX files show up on the Mac as generic document icons. Blah. And I'd like to be able to double-click on VAX files and have a terminal window open up running the appropriate VAX/VMS image. As near as I can figure, it should be possible to do exactly that, just by somehow (HyperCard?) invoking a Mac terminal emulator and sending an appropriate command string to the VAX. Doesn't sound hard to me :-) I'm sure there's a difference between Alisa's and Pacer's Appleshare servers, but to be honest, I'm no expert as to what they are. We are running Pacer software. I tried unsuccessfully to get Alisa running here, but it didn't like the load we were running on our Fastpath; at that time, there was no Alisashare. Therefore, to some extent, I've been repeating what I've been told about Alisa, albeit by people in a good position to know. Mea culpa. I've yet to see _any_ significant comparison by _anyone_ with real experiance with both products. Nobody's said much so far about TSSnet. And I'm really looking forward to how Tops for VMS works. Tops is peer-to-peer; the idea of mounting a Mac volume from the VAX and backing it up to tape every night is intriguing. /kenw