Encore Annex or Bridge Terminal Server


SYMALG%YUSOL.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Sat, 15 Nov 86 13:07 EST


Newsgroups: mod.computers.tcp-ip
Subject: Encore Annex or Bridge Terminal Server ?
Reply-To: Reply-To: mike@yetti.UUCP (Mike Clarkson )
Organization: York U. Computer Science

We have a Sun 160 to which we would like to add about 10 terminals lines.
The Sun is mainly a file server for 3 3/50's, and the amount of use of
the terminal ports is expected to be light. There are other machines on the
Ethernet that I would like to reach with the terminals, but I could always
log into the Sun first, and then Telnet or whatever across the ethernet.

1) What do I lose by putting my terminals on the ethernet? For example,
will ^O ^S ^Q all get gobbled rather than passed to Emacs for instance.
Will a terminal server on the ethernet affect paging from the Sun 50's to
the Sun 160?

2) Besides flexibilty, what do I gain by having my terminals on the
ethernet? Performance? Would I be better off with an ALM on the VME bus?

3) What advantages does the Encore Annex have over the Bridge boxes?
I would love to hear from anyone who has one.

4) Does anyone have the phone number for Encore? I have the Bridge info.

E-mail to me, and I'll summarize to the net.

Mike Clarkson, yetti!mike.UUCP

Mike Clarkson, ...!allegra \ BITNET: Mike Clarkson, ...!allegra \ BITNET: mike@YUYETTI or
CRESS, York University, ...!decvax \ CRESS, York University, ...!decvax \ SYMALG@YUSOL
4700 Keele Street, ...!ihnp4 > !utzoo!yetti!mike
North York, Ontario, ...!linus /
CANADA M3J 1P3. ...!watmath / Phone: +1 (416) 736-2100 x 7767

"...the most inevitable business communications system on the planet."
                                                - ROLM magazine advertisement
 which planet?



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:36:59 GMT