root@nebulus.UUCP (Dennis S. Breckenridge) (04/12/90)
> For the Unix box, we've got an idle (hah) 386-25 with > SCO Xenix 2.3.2. We can also use AT&T Unix V/386 3.2, if ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wrong!!! Right! > thats better. Again with the WD8003E and again which > software package should we buy? (There MUST be a PD TCP/IP > for this OS somewhere) The AT&T release of WIN/386 works. Some of the tests performed were with a 3C501 (we seen speeds of 4 k per second, almost touching the sneaker-net speeds) then we tried the WD800X card and we got a healthy 150k per second. Good stuff Western Digital! Turn the kernel tunables way up, this helps the caching out. In so far as PD TCP you can try the KA9Q stuff. It's not bad for a PD software package but like any PD program it is constantly evolving! > For communicating (at the application level) between > host and remote, what libraries exist for sending messages? > Or should a RFS pipe/file message system be used? Is this > where STREAMS comes in? This question is a little confusing, host and remote can talk PC/NFS or TELNET or whatever. The WIN/386 stuff is streams based, that is the libraries have implemented streams at the connection level. In an ideal world I would run the NCSA Telnet on the PC based machine and WIN on the Unix based machine. This will give you a workable solution. > Is the WD8003E card going to drag the 386 way down? Can > the card even be used in the server? Absolutely! This is the card to use! -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis S. Breckenridge (604) 277-7413 dennis@nebulus.uucp VE7TCP EMACS: Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping! -----------------------------------------------------------------------------