From: rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo)
Subject: Re: Various Responses
Followup-To: austin.public-net
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: austin
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:38:47 GMT

petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu writes:
>rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
>> I sense a little confusion on your part (and perhaps a little animosity)
>> as far as wixer goes.  Let me help dispel some of your myths.
>
>Actually I'm quite away of, ask George.

I'm sorry, this sentence doesn't parse.

>[...] There's a major difference between a machine connected to  
>Internet and one that isn't.  There's a LOT of load that goes on due to the  
>connection, not to mention a large number of people that will most likely  
>wish to use the system over the network (i.e. the Freenet's get something  
>like 75% of their traffic from Internet).

There isn't a "LOT of load" that goes on due to an internet connection.
In fact, there's even less load than one has with 10 active serial terminal
ports.

I have run a network of sparcstations for a large academic research 
institution.  I currently run a network of 486-class machines under SCO
for a large corporate institution.  There isn't a "major difference between
a machine connected to the Internet and one that isn't" besides the fact
that one is connected, and one isn't.  TCP/IP stacks aren't exactly CPU-
crippling.

The Freenet, as you say, provides for virtually anyone to get an account
and use their net across the united states.  However, that is not part of
the charter of the austin public net, as far as I can see, and so is
completely immaterial as to how much these machines will be loaded.

>> You must be using a strange definition of "real time."  [...]
>
>Real time included between machines spread accross the US eventually. 

All that's required for that is an internet connection.  There's no magic
involved in RISC boxes that allow them to have this "real time" where
486-class machines can't.

>> I'm a systems analyst for a local major UNIX VAR.  I build and qualify
>> PCs for a living.  A 486/50 is more than capable of racking NNTP and
>> SMTP while servicing over 20 interactive users simultaneously under
>> SCO 3.2.4.  Especially if all they're doing is "communicating".  Perhaps
>> you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Intel-based machines
>> sprouted from observation of DOS and Windows?
>
>Well, we're looking at 64 users within a reasonable amount of time, and my  
>experience on "Intel machines" comes from a wide background including DOS,  
>QNX, Unix and Xenix, in addition a couple other real-time OSs that I did  
>projects on top of.

People have run 200 interactive users on one SCO box.  Either you haven't
experienced nearly enough 386 Unix, or you don't understand what you saw.

>> If you're moving "hundreds of megabytes" around by mail or news, then
>> you might consider recommending FTP to your users.  A practical Usenet
>> feed is about 50M daily.  Mail between 300 users should account for
>> less than 30M, unless they all type continuously at over 150 words per
>> minute.
>
>FTP only works so far, and it's far from 'user friendly' in my opinion.
>If we only had 300 user's that would be amazing.  The Freenets (some of which  
>are in smaller cities) have thousands of users.  The examples I gave were for  
>a system with 500 users, you read from that, as they are "real world"  
>samples.

My paragraph was based on your statement that you had 300 users doing this.
Assuming that 200 people have been hired, I'd still note that they would
have to type at over 90 wpm continuously to come even close to using as
much bandwidth as you claimed.

>> Actually, depending on how many "hundreds of megabytes" you're talking
>> about, it ranges from way too much to an extreme overexaggeration.
>
>It's reality, I read the logs.  While not every system has that large of a  
>load, it's not that "unrealistic" for a large system for the public to handle  
>a large amount of information on a daily basis.

There must be some explanation for the discrepancy between possible reality
and what you read, then.  Perhaps users are mailing themselves uuencoded
tar files, over and over?  50M news + 50M mail (very high estimate) =
100M, not "several hundreds of megabytes".

>> Regardless, I have a 486/50 right now that handles mail and news for
>> over 200 users.  It is also worked on by an average of 25 simultaneous
>> programmers, many of whom use Ingres and Microsoft C under SCO 3.2.4.
>> It operates seamlessly in interactive communications at over 9600 baud
>> (faster than DTE).  If the DTEs were dialed down to 2400 baud, it could
>> handle around eighty users reading news and sending mail.
>
>Well, all I can say is that the last 486/33 I used under SCO was a dog with  
>32 users on it.  That's my opinion, nothing more.

Then your opinion is faulty.

>> What does the operating system have to do with the question?
>
>Capability.  MSDOS is far from being capable of what Unix is.

Nobody's talking about using MSDOS.

>As always ... these statements are based on the "reality" as I see it based  
>on being a Unix administrator for 8 years.  They in no way represent "the one  
>true religion," such that it is.  In the end, the equipment decision will be  
>based on financial matters not necessarily what we want...

I'd be interested in a breakdown of your experience, given some of the
things that you've stated in this forum.

>Chris
>--
>| Chris Petrilli
>| petrilli@nextover.pe.utexas.edu, petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu
>| All opinions are my own, if they even belong to anyone.


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sebastian Gallo                              rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------