From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 24161 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2021 21:25:38 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 24 Jan 2021 21:25:38 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5816C9C79B; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:25:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F00F9C78D; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:25:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id B83319C78D; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:25:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 389439C5FD for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:25:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id E6C4035E1B7; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 13:25:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 13:25:25 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Jon Steinhart Message-ID: <20210124212525.GJ21030@mcvoy.com> References: <20210124183653.GD21030@mcvoy.com> <202101242045.10OKjDvA964774@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20210124211100.GI21030@mcvoy.com> <202101242114.10OLEYGk966708@darkstar.fourwinds.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202101242114.10OLEYGk966708@darkstar.fourwinds.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] tangential unix question: whatever happened to NeWS? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 01:14:34PM -0800, Jon Steinhart wrote: > So I never liked Apollos much. What I was referring to was Apollo's claim > that their token-ring network performed better for large numbers of nodes. > And they were correct. However, they didn't consider the eventually > invention of switches that solved the problem. The network performance of the cluster of Apollos we had was awful. I don't know anything about how you set that up, never liked token rings, maybe it is possible to set it up wrong, I dunno. All I know was network performance was awful on the Apollos. It's a statistically valid sampling of one case :-)