jch@DEVVAX.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Jeffrey C Honig) (05/23/88)
Can anyone relate any experiences, good or bad, with Proteon's new Ethernet and CPU cards and version 8.0 of the software? Does anyone actually have any of these new goodies yet? Thanks Jeff
lekash@ORVILLE.NAS.NASA.GOV (John Lekashman) (05/23/88)
We've had 8.0 running on a pronet-80 to ethernet gw for about seven weeks. It hasn't crashed or lost it at all. Works fine. I did have to restart it once 5 weeks ago when a static ram parameter changed. Proteon did a fine job on the installation, redid our whole static ram config for us on it. Whether your installer will come shoot me for telling you, I don't know. End to end throughput is at least double what it was in 7.4. Some numbers for using 8.0: sun 3/260 on ether to sun on pronet-80 290 kBytes/second sun 3/260 on pronet-80 to sun on ethernet 210 kbytes/second With streams running both ways, the GW handles 1400 packets/second. This is about half 'large' packets (1K for ftp data) and half small (64 byte ack packets.) It is not certain whether this number could be larger when more hosts get involved. Maybe I'll know later. I haven't yet accurately measured aggregate throughput, but we can get at least an effective 2.3 mbits/second through it into host machine memory, using TCP. This is the effective data rate, including acks. From the way timing results look, I suspect aggregate from multiple hosts is larger. john
RAF@NIHCU.BITNET ("Roger Fajman") (05/23/88)
We've been running 8.0 on our gateway (without new CPU or Ethernet cards) for a couple of weeks now with no problems. The upgrade (which includes various new ROMs) wouldn't work when I installed it, but did when Ken Crocker from Proteon came here to do it. We got 8.0 rather early because Proteon could never get 7.4 to work on our gateway, which has a lot of interfaces. Not having 7.4 kept us from connecting to SURANET because of the subnetting restrictions in 7.3. Since 8.0 was installed, our T1 line to the University of Maryland for SURANET has been working fine, but is not yet heavily loaded. Our gateway has 11 interfaces, 5 of which are actually in use at the present time. We do plan to upgrade to the new CPU and Ethernet cards.
kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (05/23/88)
In article <8805230110.AA00698@devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU> jch@DEVVAX.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Jeffrey C Honig) writes: >Can anyone relate any experiences, good or bad, with Proteon's new >Ethernet and CPU cards and version 8.0 of the software? > >Does anyone actually have any of these new goodies yet? Boston University beta tested the new CPUs and new Enet boards with good results. We didn't have any hardware problems to speak of and only one software problem. To save memory, Proteon changed the default number of DECnet nodes and this caused us to lose some DECNet nodes until we figured out the source of the problem. I don't have any hard throughput numbers. We are running IP and DECnet. Rel 7.4 worked well for us, so Rel 8.0 was transparent. There are a few added features in 8.0. One nice one is console port security. There are also configureable ARP cache time-out parameters now. I hope to have more hard data soon, but we have been overworked and struggling to fix the Pronet FOI receiver aging problem at the same time as the beta. Kent England, Boston University