7 Jul
2004
7 Jul
'04
9 a.m.
I had a more careful look at the pile of terminal servers and hubs
today, and found some more "stuff". I'm surprised I've had so little
response, but if anyone definitely wants any of this, please let me
know before the end of next week or it will be gone (crushed/landfill).
However, if I know for sure that someone wants particular things, I
can hold some of them for a little longer.
qty.1 VT220, amber screen, working, in resonable condition, with
keyboard
qty.1 VT510, green (I think) screen, decent condition, with keyboard
(There may be a few more VT510s or VT420s. Apparently someone found
four in a storeroom this morning, but I've not inspected them yet.)
qty.15 Emulex P4000 terminal servers, 32-port, network booting (DECnet
or TCP/IP), with parallel port, BNC connector, AUI connector,
and
32 MMJ ports. I'll throw in 32 short MMJ-to-RJ45 cables and an
Allied Telesyn 10baseT microtransceiver with each.
1 is working (well, it powers up and passes the self-test); 5 are
"faulty" (power light comes on but not much else happens -- probably
faulty PSU), 3 are "dead" (almost certainly blown PSU), 4 have no PSU
board, and there are two that I've not properly tested yet.
qty.6 32-port 19" rackmount panels, 2U high, to take clip-in jacks
(eg RJ45 couplers). Sorry, no spare RJ45 couplers. These were
used with the terminal servers, we used short MMJ-RJ45 cables
to connect the TS to the back of the panel, and connected normal
patch leads to the front. You can buy couplers (but be warned,
I've never yet seen one that met the Cat5 spec, despite some
claims), or individual clip-in RJ45 sockets with Krone/110
punchdown connectors (which do meet Cat5/5e/6 specs) in various
colours, BNC connectors, ST fibre connectors, etc.
qty.?? several (a dozen or so) 3Com Linkbuilder FMS II 24-port hubs,
1U high 19" rackmount, mostly with management units. Good for
the PSUs if you don't need a 10Mb/s hub :-)
qty.?? several (a dozen or so) 3Com SuperStack II PS 40 24-port hubs,
1U high 19" rackmount, with on-board management. Neater than
the FMS II hubs.
Various expansion modules that plug into the back of 3Com hubs. You
can fit two to a PS 40, or one to an FMS II:
qty.10 AUI port, 10base5 module
qty.1 BNC 10base2 module
qty.5 Fanout module, like an AUI in reverse
qty.1 AUI bridge -- looks like an AUI port but has a lot of
electronics too
qty.6 (or maybe more) fibre optic adaptor with 2 x ST connectors
Also a box of Allied Telesyn AUI-to-10baseT microtransceivers, and
several older (mostly 12-port) hubs that are good for the PSUs (and not
much else IMHO).
I'll be away from tomorrow night until Wednesday, but if you want any
of this stuff, please email me. It seems a shame to scrap it
completely.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
7 Jul
7 Jul
9:11 p.m.
At 22:00 07/07/2004, Pete Turnbull wrote:
I had a more careful look at the pile of terminal
servers and hubs
today, and found some more "stuff". I'm surprised I've had so little
response, but if anyone definitely wants any of this, please let me
know before the end of next week or it will be gone (crushed/landfill).
However, if I know for sure that someone wants particular things, I
can hold some of them for a little longer.
Hmm...
My first thought was "well to save it being scrapped, I'd grab it and eBay
it" :-) but having just checked selling prices of 10Mbps hubs ... it'd
barely be worth it, especially after adding in a 150 mile round trip, and a
day's work..
I don't need them myself, as I've already got spare 10Mbps hubs, a terminal
server and a couple of terminals I don't use [yet]..)
Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
Rob
9:40 p.m.
On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 09:11, Rob O'Donnell wrote:
I don't need them myself, as I've already got
spare 10Mbps hubs, a terminal
server and a couple of terminals I don't use [yet]..)
Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
I do at home - mainly because I keep on finding free 10MBps hubs :-)
Seeing as everyone seems to be upgrading to wireless hopefully 100MBps
hubs will start going on the scrap pile soon!
(Interestingly, there seems to be a huge drive toward wireless at the
moment, and people only find out how slow and unreliable it is when it's
too late - all I've heard from real installations so far are horror
stories and nothing along the lines of "oh yeah, it works fine")
Technology - pfft! :-)
cheers
Jules
8 Jul
8 Jul
12:04 a.m.
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:40:13 +0000, Jules Richardson
<julesrichardsonuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
(Interestingly, there seems to be a huge drive toward
wireless at the
moment, and people only find out how slow and unreliable it is when it's
too late - all I've heard from real installations so far are horror
stories and nothing along the lines of "oh yeah, it works fine")
Interesting, because we have LOTS of wireless here at Virginia Tech
and oh yeah, it works fine. I'm on a wireless connenction right now.
The house I live in is 175 years old and is on the Federal Register of
Historic Places. The walls are 16" thick brick - even the interior
walls. Because the building is protected, I couldn't run a wired
network, so we went with wireless. It works fine, even through the
very thick walls and floors.
I think that wireless installations that are slow and/or unreliable
probably have configuration issues or interference from other sources.
12:40 a.m.
New subject: Wireless networks (was Free stuff (UK) again)
In our experience, wireless is fine for casual internet connections,
thin clients (terminal services, citrix, rdp) but much too slow for
anything that involves any level of data transfer. We sell and support
medical software that transfers very large databases. I have lost count
of how many offices have implimented wireless networks without checking
with us first. They usually scream bloody murder when we inform them
they will have to revert back to wired networks. It seems mostly the
doctors brother-in-law reccomended wireless.
I use wireless 802.11g at home for my kids and wifes internet
connections. All of my Unix boxes are wired. Since I'm again an
apartment dweller, the mgt company frowns on racks and patch panel
installations.
Christopher McNabb wrote:
Interesting, because we have LOTS of wireless here at Virginia Tech
and oh yeah, it works fine. I'm on a wireless connenction right now.
The house I live in is 175 years old and is on the Federal Register of
Historic Places. The walls are 16" thick brick - even the interior
walls. Because the building is protected, I couldn't run a wired
network, so we went with wireless. It works fine, even through the
very thick walls and floors.
I think that wireless installations that are slow and/or unreliable
probably have configuration issues or interference from other sources.
1:31 a.m.
New subject: Wireless networks (was Free stuff (UK) again)
>> In our experience, wireless is fine for casual
internet
>> connections, thin clients (terminal services, citrix, rdp)
>> but much too slow for anything that involves any level of
>> data transfer. We sell and support medical software that
>> transfers very large databases. I have lost count of how
>> many offices have implimented wireless networks without
>> checking with us first. They usually scream bloody murder
>> when we inform them they will have to revert back to wired
>> networks. It seems mostly the doctors brother-in-law
>> reccomended wireless.
Wireless communicatios do have significant issues, but can play an
invaluable role in many business situations.
You are 100% correct that almost every client WILL have problems if they
take a heavy traffic application what was designed for
high-speed/high-reliability connections and just decide to run it over a
wireless connection. On the other hand, I have been involved in the
development of a number of applications [including imaging] that moves
significant data over a wireless link. The big difference is that these
applications were designed from the ground up to work with this type of
link. Among other things this required: background processing of all
transfers, ability to resume transfers over broken connections, additional
steps to secure the data.
For my development environment, I am lucky. My core develop [currently 11]
run on a 1GB switched [combination fiber and copper] environment. My other
fixed machines [currently 5] run on wired 100MB [fully switched] and I am
running 802.11g for the mobiles (this is scheduled for an upgrade to Super
802.11g once the market stablizes a bit).
David.
1:01 a.m.
At 13:04 08/07/2004, Christopher McNabb wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:40:13 +0000, Jules Richardson
<julesrichardsonuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I have wireless here, but it's only for a single laptop that gets carted
all about the house. Everything else is mostly connected by Cat5 Ethernet,
at 100Mbps. It works OK...
Most dodgy connection I know of was put in at a customer ages back.. they
had two separate units on an industrial estate. Line of sight, barely,
(Interestingly, there seems to be a huge drive
toward wireless at the
I think that wireless installations that are slow and/or unreliable
probably have configuration issues or interference from other sources. from back of one, to front of the other, but about
200M distance, with
other units and a road and car-park in the way. They HAD been
using a
direct-dial ISDN link between the units, but it was costing them a
fortune. Somebody said they could use wireless LAN, and muggins here had
to implement it within a stupid low budget. We ended up sticking an cheap
access point on the back of one building, and a USB wireless network card
on the front of the other. (they had to go outside, as was metal cladding
on the building, but put them in sealed plastic boxes.)
It saved them a fortune on phone calls and ISDN rental, and it even worked
most of the time...
11:12 a.m.
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 14:01:01 +0100
"Rob O'Donnell" <classiccmp.org(a)irrelevant.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
At 13:04 08/07/2004, Christopher McNabb wrote:
My wireless network here really exists only because it was a 'why not?'
proposition recently. The cheap Linksys router I was using to share my
DSL connection died for some reason, and it turned out to be just as
cheap to buy one now with a wireless port on it. At the same time I
bought the cheapest wireless card I could find. I connect an almost
on-topic (quite old) Toshiba 486 laptop with it for portable web access.
Wireless gateways are so cheap that for me one ended up being a free
add-in.
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:40:13 +0000, Jules
Richardson
<julesrichardsonuk(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I have wireless here, but it's only for a single laptop that gets
carted all about the house. Everything else is mostly connected by
Cat5 Ethernet, at 100Mbps. It works OK...
(Interestingly, there seems to be a huge drive
toward wireless at
the
I think that wireless installations that are slow and/or unreliable
probably have configuration issues or interference from other
sources. 
11:12 a.m.
Antonio Carlini wrote:
>Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
I have 5 vaxen and a laserjet on bnc and a couple of ipx's on a nice
10Mbps switch. I would upgrade but I think it would cost far to much
money I haven't seen any qbus or turbochannel ethernet options for sale
anyware.
Dan
11:25 a.m.
Antonio Carlini wrote:
>>Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
No I didn't :-) Someone else wrote that,
I merely replied in the affirmative!
I have 5 vaxen and a laserjet on bnc and a couple of
ipx's on a nice
10Mbps switch. I would upgrade but I think it would cost far to much
money I haven't seen any qbus or turbochannel ethernet
options for sale
anyware.
TC ones are indeed quite rare. But DELQAs are
quite often to be seen on ePay (don't look
now - there's one up for $99!). If I ever come
across my box of Qbus bits I'll keep you in
mind and see if there's a DELQA in there.
I'm not wure why you would want to upgrade
your kit anyway. The VAXstation and MicroVAX
range are all limited to 10Mb ethernet. Even
the TC cards I know of (i.e. are supported)
are 10Mb. And mostly they have trouble
driving 10MB to the limit! The IPXs
are no better AFAIK :-)
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini(a)iee.org
11:48 a.m.
I'm not wure why you would want to upgrade
your kit anyway. The VAXstation and MicroVAX
range are all limited to 10Mb ethernet. Even
the TC cards I know of (i.e. are supported)
are 10Mb. And mostly they have trouble
driving 10MB to the limit! The IPXs
are no better AFAIK :-)
Antonio
Only to speed up copying stuff between machines, but I meant upgrading
to 100Mbps which I know you can get for qbus but I'm not sure about
turbochannel. It would probably be cheaper to replace the machines but
I'm quite happy with them.
Dan
9 Jul
9 Jul
4:57 a.m.
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:48:54 +0100
Dan Williams <dan_williams(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Only to speed up copying stuff between machines, but I
meant upgrading
to 100Mbps which I know you can get for qbus but I'm not sure about
turbochannel. It would probably be cheaper to replace the machines but
I'm quite happy with them.
FDDI. 100 MBit/s, no collisions and there are QBus
(Yes!) and TC cards.
I have a DEFQA in my VAX 4000-400 and a DEFTA in my DEC 3000-300X.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
6 a.m.
>>>> "Jochen" == Jochen Kunz
<jkunz(a)unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> writes:
Jochen> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:48:54 +0100 Dan Williams
Jochen> <dan_williams(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Only to speed up copying stuff between machines,
but I meant
> upgrading to 100Mbps which I know you can get for qbus but I'm not
> sure about turbochannel. It would probably be cheaper to replace
> the machines but I'm quite happy with them.
Jochen> FDDI. 100 MBit/s,
no collisions and there are QBus (Yes!) and
Jochen> TC cards. I have a DEFQA in my VAX 4000-400 and a DEFTA in
Jochen> my DEC 3000-300X. --
Sure, neat if you can find it. But FDDI is dead, dead, dead. And
Ethernet doesn't have any collisions either if you run it full
duplex.
paul
7:28 a.m.
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:00:57 -0400
Paul Koning <pkoning(a)equallogic.com> wrote:
Sure, neat if you can find it.
There is plenty
of FDDI stuff on ePay for cheap.
But FDDI is dead, dead, dead.
??? Isn't all
the stuff we use and talk about here "dead, dead, dead"?
Even 10 MBit/s Ethernet is "dead, dead, dead". (At least in its 10Base5
and 10Base2 incarnations.) FDDI is the "proper" and in most cases only
available 100 MBit/s network technology for older machines like a SGI
Indigo or DEC 3000.
And Ethernet doesn't have any collisions either if
you run it full
duplex.
And when two machines are pushing 8 MBit/s each to a third machine? The
target machine surely can't handle 16 MBit/s with its 10 MBit/s physical
link. So you loose bandwith due to collisions in case of high load - the
case where you don't want to loose any bandwith.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
8:26 a.m.
>>>> "Jochen" == Jochen Kunz
<jkunz(a)unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> writes:
Jochen> On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:00:57 -0400 Paul Koning
Jochen> <pkoning(a)equallogic.com> wrote:
> Sure, neat if you can find it.
Jochen>
There is plenty of FDDI stuff on ePay for cheap.
> But FDDI is dead, dead, dead.
Jochen>
??? Isn't all the stuff we use and talk about here "dead,
Jochen> dead, dead"? Even 10 MBit/s Ethernet is "dead, dead,
Jochen> dead". (At least in its 10Base5 and 10Base2 incarnations.)
Jochen> FDDI is the "proper" and in most cases only available 100
Jochen> MBit/s network technology for older machines like a SGI
Jochen> Indigo or DEC 3000.
Sure, fair enough. I thought the discussion was about good fast
networks to use around the shop.
> And Ethernet doesn't have any collisions
either if you run it full
> duplex.
Jochen> And when two machines are pushing 8 MBit/s each to a third
Jochen> machine? The target machine surely can't handle 16 MBit/s
Jochen> with its 10 MBit/s physical link. So you loose bandwith due
Jochen> to collisions in case of high load - the case where you don't
Jochen> want to loose any bandwith.
No, that's congestion, not collisions. Collisions has a specific
meaning that applies ONLY to half duplex Ethernet. Congestion happens
in any network when there's more input than the bandwidth of the
output.
If you have more than 10 Mb/s worth of traffic, you need a link with
more than 10 Mb/s capacity -- FDDI is one, and so is 100BaseT. The
two are roughly the same in capacity, though the worst case latency of
FDDI is much higher than that of Ethernet. (Not that it matters in
practice.)
paul
7 Jul
7 Jul
10:25 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:11:36AM +0100, Rob O'Donnell wrote:
Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
I certainly do - I don't have any way to put 100BaseT NICs in an Amiga,
nor a PDP-11 or VAX.
What I use is a 10BaseT hub with AUI and 10Base2 for all my old stuff,
fed into a single switch port on a 100BaseT switch. Since I happen to
have a 100% Netgear infrastructure at home, the 10BaseT hub is a EN108
(not an EN108TP), and the switch is a FS108. I also have an FE104 4-port
100BaseT-only hub that I occasionally use in the other room if I need to
have more than one machine on that drop.
They've been bulletproof for many years with one exception - the 1.0A +5V
inline switcher PSU for the FS108 died last year. Ded. Ded. Ded. But
to a certain extent, those are disposable. An external ZIP drive PSU works
fine, and with the number of dead ZIP drives I've seen, PSUs for them aren't
hard to come by.
One of these days, I'll pick up an inexpensive HP or Cabletron box at a
hamfest that has a 10BaseFL port - they were under $50 last time I was at
Dayton, and there were literally pallets of them. I've been using the
AUI port on the EN108 to drive a 10BaseFL transceiever to light the the fiber
that goes down to the basement for the EPROM burner (originally a Commodore
Colt (XT-clone), now a Compaq 286 laptop w/docking station - both ISA, so
no 100BaseT) and the VAX 8200 w/DEBNT.
So... I have probably as many 10BaseT nodes on my network at home as I have
100BaseT nodes. But I don't need to import a spare hub from Britain.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-130-S Current South Pole Weather at 08-Jul-2004 10:10 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -76.0 F (-60.1 C) Windchill -120.2 F (-84.59 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 15.8 kts Grid 005 Barometer 660.9 mb (11355. ft)
Ethan.Dicks(a)amanda.spole.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
8 Jul
8 Jul
10:52 a.m.
Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
I do. Some of my machines have 10Mbps ethernet built-in, others have it
on expansion cards. I don't think any of my machines have enough bus
bandwidth to support anything faster.
But I have a fair ammount of network hardware (I use thinwire coax, it's
simpler than twisted pair), and York is rather a long way to go and
collect anything..
-tony
9 Jul
9 Jul
10:57 p.m.
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Tony Duell wrote:
> Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
Yes. I
do.
With classic systems, 100Mbps or up does not make any sense. And,
in some cases, not even full duplex and/or switching makes sense;
I have had several instances of a machine going nuts after being
connected to a switch instead of a hub- protocol incompatibilities.
So.. I have 3 DEChub90-based "retro" segments (10B2, 10BT, 10B-FL)
which now all connect to the DEChub900 MultiSwitch "retro" 10/100
switched core segment with 10B-FL links for galvanic separation.
The faster VAXen, MIPSen and Alpha's are on the core segment so they
can babble all they want. The core also houses two Wireless segments
(three actually: 915MHz, 2.4GHz FH and 2.4GHz DS, but the latter is
usually switched off) for the laptops and other fun.
My personal network is 10/100 switched (Cisco Catalyst) and connected
to my company network, which is 100/1000 switched (Catalyst) with all
the servers, and my fast workstation being on gigabit fiber. There's
also a wireless network (802.11a/b/g auto) for the laptops and the
friends that come in and want coffee *and* Internet ;-)
Obviously, all that comes to a screeching halt when going to the
Internet connection- I have two (one 8192/8192 SDSL for the company
and another 8192/2048 ADSL for personal use, like movie downloading ;-)
but obviously, they can be driven by a single 10MBps segment easily...
Also, I need the switched network for QoS, because I am completely
based on VoIP here (and in/to the U.S.) including a live cam link
between here and my lil'son's room. I'd rather not see him go
all stuttery just because there's also a DVD copy running on the
network... switching, tagging and shaping helps here.
Most of my "work" I do on highspeed networks, the movie-and-iso moving
indeed also happens on the gigabit core, but for all other work, the
10Mbps (and wireless) connections are plenty fast...
--f
12 Jul
12 Jul
2:28 a.m.
>>>> "Fred" == Fred N van Kempen
<waltje(a)pdp11.nl> writes:
Fred> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Tony Duell wrote:
> > Does nobody use 10Mbps any more?
Fred> Yes. I do.
Fred> With classic systems, 100Mbps or up does not make any sense.
Fred> And, in some cases, not even full duplex and/or switching makes
Fred> sense; I have had several instances of a machine going nuts
Fred> after being connected to a switch instead of a hub- protocol
Fred> incompatibilities.
Good point; few old systems can go much over 10 Mb/s. (The better
VAXen, perhaps, and Alphas, of course, but certainly not a PDP11.)
Full duplex appeared in 10BaseT, but I wouldn't be surprised to see
devices that don't understand it. Switches, on the other hand -- it
seems VERY strange for that to break things. They have been around
since the dawn of Ethernet, and they are basically invisible.
The only issue I can think of is that switches can easily send back to
back packets, and some misdesigned NICs (the 3C501 comes to mind)
can't handle back to back packets. At one time we at DEC were asked
to implement a "don't send back to back packets" feature because of
this -- which we refused to do, vehemently...
paul
7420
days inactive
7425
days old
20 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
a.carlini＠ntlworld.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
classiccmp.org＠irrelevant.fsnet.co.uk -
cmcnabb＠gmail.com -
dan_williams＠ntlworld.com -
dickset＠amanda.spole.gov -
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
jrice54＠vzavenue.net -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
pete＠dunnington.u-net.com -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
Pres＠macro-inc.com -
sastevens＠earthlink.net -
waltje＠pdp11.nl