From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 24 07:36:09 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id HAA14850 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 07:36:09 -0700 Received: from etinc.com (etinc-gw.new-york.net [165.254.13.209]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA14844 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 07:36:04 -0700 Received: from trumpet.etnet.com (trumpet.etnet.com [129.45.17.35]) by etinc.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA13636; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:53:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:53:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199510241453.KAA13636@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Bruce Evans From: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Subject: Async utilization..... Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >>> I really can't believe you guys are bragging about the widespread >>> utilization of >>> souped-up async. You still don't get the fact that you're losing several >>> hundred dollars >>> worth of machine (which brings the cost in-line with sync) to save a few >>> hundred on >>> cards for a less-efficient solution. > >How much less efficient? For logins, even a local ethernet is only a few >times more efficient than 115200 bps async through a 16450. This is >mostly because the pty implementation is poor. Your numbers, like unix utilization and timing numbers, are garbage. Set up a controlled test where you know the answer and the numbers won't be close. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25