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