Datasets:
HDTenEightyP
/
UTZOO

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
0
7.33k
documentation calls the 3C100's Level 1 and the DELNI's Level 2. Most of the
equipment attached to the DELNI's and the DEMPR is configured for Level 2.
The HP switches between 802.3 and Level 1, and is at Level 1. This is the
scene as I discovered it -- I never suspected that we didn't have level 2
tranceivers. I get intermittent pairs of "server not responding/server ok"
messages on Suns when both the machines and the net are relatively quiet, and
doing sprays between machines sometimes shows 0% loss, sometimes up to 65%
loss. The HP consistently loses 95% when sprayed. Diskless machines often
boot extremely slowly.
Hardware on the net:
HP 9000/320
Sun 2/50,2/120,3/50,3/60,3/180,3/280,4/110
PC clone with 3C503 (?) ethernet board (usually turned off)
Apollo DN3000
IBM RT (AIX)
MicroVax II,2000 (Ultrix and VMS)
The Ultrix machine has trailers disabled.
The Questions:
Are my tranceivers losing terribly? Should I replace them with
level 2 tranceivers? What level(2) are the DELNI and the DEMPR?
Should I get a thinnet thing for the HP and run it at 802.3 over
thinnet?
--
@disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my
employer, my GIGI, my VT05, or my 11/34)
beak is@>beak is not
Anthony A. Datri @SysAdmin(Stepstone Corporation) aad@stepstone.com stpstn!aad
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!texsun!convex!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!lfcs!bct
From: bct@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Brian Tompsett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: x.25 server for tcp/ip
Message-ID: <1369@etive.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Feb 89 09:48:15 GMT
References: <333@pbseps.UUCP>
Sender: news@etive.ed.ac.uk
Reply-To: bct@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Brian Tompsett)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, U.K.
Lines: 22
In article <333@pbseps.UUCP> rdp@pbseps.PacBell.COM (Richard Perlman) writes:
>We are looking for an x.25 Server for a TCP/IP ethernet. [...]
>
>It would also be nice to be able to use the x.25 server as a
>TCP/IP gateway between a local UNIX host and some distant
>network.
You should look at boxes made by Spider. They specialise in this kind of
product. Some literature just arrived on my desk this morning about a TCP/IP
router via X.25. They also do X.25 WAN to X.25 LAN via ether boxes and all
kinds of other goodies.
They have an office in Burlington Mass. (617 270 3510).
We have an X.25/Ether gateway here and it acts as the X.25 gate for 6 or
so main frames. Seems to work OK.
Brian.
> Brian Tompsett. Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh,
> JCMB, The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road, EDINBURGH, EH9 3JZ, Scotland, U.K.
> Telephone: +44 31 667 1081 x2711.
> JANET: bct@uk.ac.ed.ecsvax ARPA: bct%ed.ecsvax@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!kunivv1!atcmpe!gertjan
From: gertjan@atcmp.nl (Gertjan Vinkesteyn)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: NFS vs RFS
Message-ID: <478@atcmpe.atcmp.nl>
Date: 6 Feb 89 17:59:13 GMT
References: <9018@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <7387@chinet.chi.il.us> <463@maxim.ERBE.SE>
Organization: AT Computing, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Lines: 12
In article <463@maxim.ERBE.SE>, prc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) writes:
> In article <Jan.18.22.05.48.1989.264@geneva.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> The NFS locking protocol doesn't support the SVID's mandatory locking,
> but only the advisory locking. I guess it will be hard to implement
> mandatory locking in a stateless environment like NFS.
Mandatory locking is part of SystemV Release 3, not in Berkeley releases
--
UUCP and other network )\/( ..!hp4nl!kunivv1!atcmpe!gertjan
connections via mcvax )/\( gertjan@atcmp.nl (internet)
This note does not necessarily represent the position of AT Computing BV
Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:2389 comp.sys.ibm.pc:24673
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!umbc3!digennar
From: digennar@umbc3.UMBC.EDU (Mr. Jerry DiGennaro)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Lattisnet/Ethernet over Twisted Pair
Message-ID: <1653@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>
Date: 14 Feb 89 03:07:41 GMT
References: <98@cs.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: digennar@umbc3.umbc.edu.UMBC.EDU (Mr. Jerry DiGennaro)
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Lines: 22