jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (John E. Girard) (06/07/91)
I have talked to people using various gateways from mainframes to PC Lans, and none of them ever seem to be totally satisfied. I hear that Attachmates become erratic with high loads, and that Mitek is too expensive. The IBM TCP/IP offerings look great in theory, I should be able to use TCP/IP as my LAN and do all PC terminal sessions with a 3270 version of Telnet and all file transfers with FTP. BUT BUT---I hear that the performance of IBM's TCP/IP is not soo good. The 3172 connection from the LAN to the Mainframe doesn't do much work and so the Mainframe chews cycles managing IP packets. I have heard that the maximum throughput is 600Kbps. Is anyone using TPC/IP as an alternative to a typical PC gateway, and how do you like it? How is the performance working out for you? What has anyone else heard about the future performance of the TCP/IP products? I *will* post a summary if I get interesting responses. John Girard jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG 415-968-3324 -- John Girard New Science Associates, Inc. jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: 415-968-0862
jeg@zorch.UUCP ("John E. Girard") (06/07/91)
I have talked to people using various gateways from mainframes to PC Lans, and none of them ever seem to be totally satisfied. I hear that Attachmates become erratic with high loads, and that Mitek is too expensive. The IBM TCP/IP offerings look great in theory, I should be able to use TCP/IP as my LAN and do all PC terminal sessions with a 3270 version of Telnet and all file transfers with FTP. BUT BUT---I hear that the performance of IBM's TCP/IP is not soo good. The 3172 connection from the LAN to the Mainframe doesn't do much work and so the Mainframe chews cycles managing IP packets. I have heard that the maximum throughput is 600Kbps. Is anyone using TPC/IP as an alternative to a typical PC gateway, and how do you like it? How is the performance working out for you? What has anyone else heard about the future performance of the TCP/IP products? I *will* post a summary if I get interesting responses. John Girard jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG 415-968-3324 -- John Girard New Science Associates, Inc. jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: 415-968-0862
dboyes@brazos.rice.edu (David Boyes) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun6.172328.13742@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (John E. Girard) writes: > >The IBM TCP/IP offerings look great in theory, Works pretty well in practice, too. >BUT---I hear that the performance of IBM's TCP/IP >is not soo good. The 3172 connection from the LAN >to the Mainframe doesn't do much work and so the >Mainframe chews cycles managing IP packets. >I have heard that the maximum throughput is 600Kbps. Depends greatly on the Ethernet interface you're using. Our TCP/IP server supports 200+ simultaneous connections w/o using much more than 3-5% of the available CPU. The 8232 and 3172 aren't as efficient as the Bus Technologies ELC-2 box, but are more flexible in terms of network media. (ELC-2 does Ethernet only, 8232 and 3172 can do FDDI and token ring as well as Ethernet.) We get better throughput than 600Kbps/sec on the ELC-2s. >Is anyone using TPC/IP as an alternative to a >typical PC gateway, and how do you like it? How >is the performance working out for you? What has >anyone else heard about the future performance >of the TCP/IP products? Works great. This solution is a lot cheaper than using gateway PCs, although LAN interaction with TCP can be a real problem, esp. with LAN programs that assume they own the network adapter exclusively, eg. Netware. Performance is snappy, and it's a lot more scalable. >John Girard New Science Associates, Inc. jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG >VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: 415-968-0862 -- David Boyes |The three most dangerous things in the world: dboyes@rice.edu | 1) a programmer with a soldering iron, | 2) a hardware type with a program patch, and "Delays, delays!" | 3) a user with an idea.
dboyes@BRAZOS.RICE.EDU (David Boyes) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun6.172328.13742@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (John E. Girard) writes: > >The IBM TCP/IP offerings look great in theory, Works pretty well in practice, too. >BUT---I hear that the performance of IBM's TCP/IP >is not soo good. The 3172 connection from the LAN >to the Mainframe doesn't do much work and so the >Mainframe chews cycles managing IP packets. >I have heard that the maximum throughput is 600Kbps. Depends greatly on the Ethernet interface you're using. Our TCP/IP server supports 200+ simultaneous connections w/o using much more than 3-5% of the available CPU. The 8232 and 3172 aren't as efficient as the Bus Technologies ELC-2 box, but are more flexible in terms of network media. (ELC-2 does Ethernet only, 8232 and 3172 can do FDDI and token ring as well as Ethernet.) We get better throughput than 600Kbps/sec on the ELC-2s. >Is anyone using TPC/IP as an alternative to a >typical PC gateway, and how do you like it? How >is the performance working out for you? What has >anyone else heard about the future performance >of the TCP/IP products? Works great. This solution is a lot cheaper than using gateway PCs, although LAN interaction with TCP can be a real problem, esp. with LAN programs that assume they own the network adapter exclusively, eg. Netware. Performance is snappy, and it's a lot more scalable. >John Girard New Science Associates, Inc. jeg@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG >VOICE: 415-968-3324 ************************** FAX: 415-968-0862 -- David Boyes |The three most dangerous things in the world: dboyes@rice.edu | 1) a programmer with a soldering iron, | 2) a hardware type with a program patch, and "Delays, delays!" | 3) a user with an idea.