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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 9921 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2021 23:51:14 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 24 Jan 2021 23:51:14 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A6A549C7DE; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:51:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546CD9C641; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:51:02 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HGTpE+6o"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id AA4139C641; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:51:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f51.google.com (mail-ot1-f51.google.com [209.85.210.51]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329099C5FD for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:51:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f51.google.com with SMTP id d1so11081973otl.13 for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:51:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=X70rvQPx2w4u1xdZtFqtVEd7Qx9xgz9qmOng3HpYbaY=; b=HGTpE+6otUdH0KLqW88EZd8/rjcxMqY2RvOKzX1ZhbYQkYKRuC322FTg9W/gvNCArZ 18eb3V9uvB8yXWGxCsU97HHzVI9JyxVBCyOWAlTRzchlwKMwwpO5XFs2DS++bky3Ygtu no8ojx2IkO7DnMcJ4tUmYhogfKlJgJKm11z+TEFHyW6594jSUynjUhevdgoMCYP0Yeso qi3+qBOkJuKFeWE5th0FYGV+j62c/HH51GCl0T5A7tioqu8eSZInGKZAjoRB3JQCCOSy WcNVL8h3bHzLEAmmHaWWGbvty1RxT5b9ixK82GrddqufXubgFNNz5CP6FhouXudYn1oB OM6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X70rvQPx2w4u1xdZtFqtVEd7Qx9xgz9qmOng3HpYbaY=; b=ZZn57qn8L7SH73JdxtOtadYdFzPVYG2bv+gOJMEfmnTtVWQUf1XUocg6a0E8uNMjje 1lxGH+box1a1t/9kdbMZ1vlkv2GS/XJ8PZmzXGUtk43f78oEjiTlK+MLd1VZC4VMvCow R9bchwvZxziBOM30764nRThXU0Ta78E1pjSwBUTRplozQFuPAjN0cQd+9CkaYB9Hmnf7 EBVfaIzvYVWsnN0MpUn0G3ELTQRR5C1JISW3fOSEzf2IYe+AcRqBk2xuyF2F1J+xv3YM 63qd+6G37O/7QWRc9v4tItZQF0zGO2em1tL4T9UOvwCDe2CFVNcpp6QOM566NsYfLSCZ m53Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/J5KhpKvqGdW1Ud5jZCDc+5kTOcmH8VsqfU+c3bMIv90DDNg8 ATUUQqCYwTAjGGvNWY50yg7lmsrklc/6Nv5jCNJTUV+Y X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXesVc/C+gAMW45ffyxBL3zQ7IR0AeUJEx9fl8UOH2Z9cbZkEpBtkuUXVWcF1p3QuhaJkhT8ITFXZgeEx9Ucg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1182:: with SMTP id u2mr233888otq.258.1611532259452; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:50:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6838:724a:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:50:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20210124212525.GJ21030@mcvoy.com> References: <20210124183653.GD21030@mcvoy.com> <202101242045.10OKjDvA964774@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20210124211100.GI21030@mcvoy.com> <202101242114.10OLEYGk966708@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20210124212525.GJ21030@mcvoy.com> From: Ed Carp Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 16:50:59 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: MzKTg4FxVmnDO_eK4Gx2cu45w-I Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 1/24/21, Larry McVoy wrote: > 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. Until you got over 10% utilization or so, then token-ring would blow the doors off anything else. At least that was our benchmarking results.