Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mit-athena!mit-eddie!bcn From: bcn@mit-eddie.UUCP (Clifford Neuman) Newsgroups: net.lan Subject: Re: Intelink and other ether tranceiver multiplexers Message-ID: <2257@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 12:46:59 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.2257 Posted: Mon Jun 25 12:46:59 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Jun-84 06:23:07 EDT References: <4725@amd70.UUCP> <932@omsvax.UUCP> <1154@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 25 The break even point for the Delni is about 4. If you are going to hook up less than 4 systems, you might as well get the individual trancievers. This break even point however does not take into consideration the cost of spares. With individual trancievers, if one breaks, the rest of the network still works, and usually one spare tranciever is all that you really need around. With the Delni, if it breaks, none of your machines will work. DEC sells spares for the two major components in the Delni, but combined they cost almost as much as the Delni itself. There are other advantages to the Delni though. It has a switch on it that allows you to isolate the Delni from the rest of the network if you have it connected to a larger network. This is useful if something happens to the rest of the network. You can simply isolate the Delni, and the machines connected to it will once again be able to talk to one another. What I have said probably applies to other devices similar to the Delni, but not having had experience with them, I have no way of being sure. In all, I like the Delni. It is a lot nicer only having to attach one tranciever to our ethernet cable than 5. ~ Cliff {decvax!genrad,ihnp4}!mit-eddie!bcn BCN@MIT-XX.ARPA