From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-ivax!dd
Newsgroups: net.lan
Title: U-B survey, second installment...
Article-I.D.: unm-ivax.136
Posted: Tue Feb 15 09:26:28 1983
Received: Fri Feb 18 04:07:18 1983


---------------------   Rice University   --------------------------------------
Keep in mind that all U-B equipment claiming to run on ethernet
is INCOMPATIBLE with Xerox Ethernet above the signal voltage level.
Two competing protocols can SHARE the cable but users of U-B
stuff can't access, for instance, a line printer using Xerox
protocol/hardware!

P.S.: Most people don't believe this when they first hear it.
Call U-B and they will finally admit it after a few comments
about protocol levels ...
--------------------   Simon Fraser University   -------------------------------
	We at SFU Computer Science have had an Ungermann-Bass Net/One
baseband system for about a year and a half, now. If we had to do it again,
we would probably go to something else, but let me tell you some more and
you can decide.
	We wanted a system to link our various computing resources - terminals,
a VAX 750, some micros, peripherals, the usual thing. Net/One works pretty 
well for that, although there are some problems. We also wanted a system 
suitable for distributed data base research - concurrent access control and
distributed query processing. We haven't had any luck there, for reasons I'll
get to.
	As far as software goes, the virtual circuit stuff is really good. It
does its job well, and seems to be pretty well bullet-proof under any kind of
reasonable operating conditions. We haven't tested the datagram service, so I
can't say anything there. (We just got release 82.10, by the way. It was late,
as usual.)
	The hardware works adequately well. The NIU boards don't seem prone
to failure once installed and working, but they have a distressing habit of
arriving with a port or two dead. (I can only speak for the 4S2P and SIXPAC
boards, those are all we've used so far.) Be sure to check the boards and
get replacements while they are still under warranty. As far as service for
hardware bugs from UB, our experience has been, basically, forget it. They
seem to be up to their ass in alligators and not interested in fixing a 
particular problem you have. What's worse, they emphatically will not tell
you enough to diagnose and fix the problem yourself. We have had continuing
trouble with our NSM, and have currently replaced the Winchester, the
Winchester controller board, the floppy controller board, a relay which
controls the floppy drive motor, and the fan. We have also had consistent
software problems here, including inability to access the floppy after booting
from the Winchester, and vice-versa, and a recent discovery that U-B's disk
format program cannot handle formatting the Winchester. U-B evidently knew
about this but went ahead and released the software anyhow, since the formatter
from a previous release could handle it.
	Our main complaint has been in trying to get U-B to live up to 
agreements they made at the time we entered into the initial purchase 
agreement. After inspecting the system, we came to the conclusion that we could
only do the distributed data base research if we could alter some of U-B's
low level net software. They agreed to provide us with this info, we signed
and paid, and they have been stonewalling ever since. My advice to you,
therefore, is that if you enter into any kind of agreement outside of straight
sale, and if you have any thoughts of getting more information out of them
later, get it in writing and witnessed before you sign for the system.
	A few random thoughts. The limit of six virtual circuits per board is
due to buffer space limitations. If they tell you there is a way around it,
we'd sure like to know. Our experience is that they are consistently behind
in software development (behind their salesmen, that is ; when they finally
do get something out, it will probably be quite good if it relates to net
data transport, and full of holes otherwise). The apparent reason for the
stonewalling about additional info is that U-B was badly burned by an OEM
that they had released source to. I gather the lawsuit is still going on, 
but I don't off hand now who the guilty party is. (Would like to, though, if
you happen to find out.)
	As you can see, I have strong opinions on the subject. Feel free to
give me a call. I'd be interested to know your final decision, and why.