Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why is Token ring expensive than ethernet

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 1:01:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hi,

I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
?
Can anyone explain me why ?
Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
a typical network with 100 nodes.

-shar
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 10:35:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
> ?
> Can anyone explain me why ?
> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
> a typical network with 100 nodes.

Just a matter of sales volume. No point sticking with Token Ring though,
is there?

In the early days of LANs, there were many different flavors, each with
its zealous and vociferous proponents. I suppose that was also true in
the early days of the automobile, with steam, electric, and gasoline
powered cars vying for public acceptance. After that initial period,
winners emerge and the others become historical oddities.

Happened with wired LANs too.

Bert
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 10:35:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <I477MB.Jvt@news.boeing.com>,
Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@nospam.com> wrote:
>"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
>> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
>> ?
>> Can anyone explain me why ?
>> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
>> a typical network with 100 nodes.
>
>Just a matter of sales volume. No point sticking with Token Ring though,
>is there?
>
>In the early days of LANs, there were many different flavors, each with
>its zealous and vociferous proponents. I suppose that was also true in
>the early days of the automobile, with steam, electric, and gasoline
>powered cars vying for public acceptance. After that initial period,
>winners emerge and the others become historical oddities.
>
>Happened with wired LANs too.
>
>Bert
>


When TR was a 4Mb/sec ring and Ethernet was a 10Mb/sec shared bus
there were all sorts of studies that claimed that "colisions" would
make Ethernet unpredictable above some threshold. In a corporate
environment reliability and maintainability have a high priority, as
it should be. When used in an all-IBM environmant there were system
management and diagnstics tools that Ethernet and IP didn't get until
managed hubs came into use.

When Ethernet was a stiff orange coax cable as thick as your pinky TR
cable didn't look that bad.

Only a few companies made TR cards and becasue of interoperability
problems with PC brands a company tended to buy one brand of card and
stick with it. There wasn't lots of competition and stuff was priced
for huge businesses, who look for stability and vendor support.







--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m
Related resources
Anonymous
September 17, 2004 10:43:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com>,
sharkie <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote:
: I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
:expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
:cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
:ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring

I have never used or priced Token Ring, but I can offer some
hypotheses.

In modern switched Ethernet networks, the communication between
different computers can often proceed in parallel. With 10BaseT,
100BaseT, and 100BaseTX, each end-node -must- be connected to a switch
or router [more exactly, each segment must consist of exactly two devices.]
With full duplex, that implies no collisions on the segments, and
thus no need for elaborate mechanisms that are designed to prevent
collisions. There are still flow control issues, but they are taken
care of by buffering [and "atomic locks"] in the switches, with
packets dropped only when the switch buffers get full. One can chain
together additional simple switches and routers and additional devices
with little concern about the effect upon other devices.

Token ring, on the other hand, expects looped segments, dual cables to
each device, and that the NICs fail to pass-through [so if a device
dies, the next device in the chain still gets the signal.] One cannot
simply hook up more devices and leave ports unconnected at will: one
must maintain the loop. Which is fine if your setup is quite static,
but is not condusive to rapidly changing environments in which users
expect to be able to just plug in or unplug anything that has a network
interface. Token ring bridges certainly do exist, but if you want
to be able to get to the easy plug-in convenience of Ethernet, you
end up having to go to the star "exactly two devices per segment"
topology, in which case it becomes mostly redundant to bother with the
token.

This situation leads to a greater demand for switched ethernet
than for token ring, so companies put more resources into mass
production of ethernet devices, get "economies of scale",
with the result that the prices keep falling on ethernet devices
and manufacturers have little incentive to make cheap token ring.

--
Live it up, rip it up, why so lazy?
Give it out, dish it out, let's go crazy, yeah!
-- Supertramp (The USENET Song)
September 17, 2004 11:59:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
> ?
see the other posts for some perspectives based on scale and market share.

the other issue is that token ring is a lot more complex - complicated NIC
cards (which must have their own processor to handle ring management),
complex design rules amd / or complex hubs.

And source routing (used in T/R bridges and switches) is complex, and needs
NIC type managment, and is difficult to do in a hardware accelerated chip.

Source routing in a resilient networks also tends to generate multiple
copies of a broadcast, so it was diffcult to build large resilient T/R
systems - and they had to be planned carefully, or they didnt work reliably.

So - slower (although i did work on some IBM 100 Mbps T/R)
Shared (but switched / full duplex T/R eventually appeared)
complex (and the support complications probably helped to kill it off)
expensive

and finally - it was really tied to IBM - there was a set of IEEE standards,
but wherever IBM went a different way, so did all the other manufacturers to
maintain compatibility with the dominant manufacturer.

> Can anyone explain me why ?
> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
> a typical network with 100 nodes.

A bit irrelevant now as i dont know of anyone making new T/R cards, hubs
etc. (well - maybe Cisco et al will sell you an interface for a router, or
IBM a NIC card for a mainframe....)

it used to run out 2 to 3 times the price - but there wasnt any T/R
equivalent to cheap Taiwanese Enet NICs, so that was only comparing leading
(=expensive) brands.
>
> -shar
--
Regards

Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs
Anonymous
September 18, 2004 12:48:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

sharkie wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
> ?
> Can anyone explain me why ?
> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
> a typical network with 100 nodes.

The real reason for the cost difference was very simple--IBM controlled the
technology and charged a premium for the license. Now it's expensive
because there is only one vendor doing a relatively tiny sales volume while
Ethernet has become a mass-market consumer product.

As for the percentage, well, the cheapest Token Ring NIC on the market goes
for about $135. New Intel 100TX NICs go for about $25 or white box
Taiwanese for $4. The cheapest Token Ring switch on the market is a
managed 24 port for $2650. New HP J4813As go for about $435, or you can go
to a D-Link with roughly equivalent functionality but not quality for about
360. Or if you want to go to an unmanaged switch you can go as low as $70
for 24 ports.

So, lowest price for NICs and switches for 24 nodes of 16 Mb/sec Token Ring
would be about $5890 vs 166 for 100 Mb/sec Ethernet. For equivalent
quality and functionality 100 Mb/sec Ethernet would cost $1035. To that
add the cabling cost--at $100/drop (a conservative number for the most
part) that would be $2400 for any of them. Then there's delivery and
installation of the hardware--for a network that size that's pretty much
plug and play so call it a day to get everything set up and tested--that's
another $800 or so depending on your labor rates and overhead. So, minimum
cost for Token Ring would be about $9090, an equivalent but much faster
Ethernet about $4235, and a minimum cost Ethernet about $3560. So 16
Mb/sec Token Ring, installed, would go 2-3 times more than 100 Mb/sec
Ethernet at this time.

Of course that's all for new--if you're willing to go to used equipment
Token Ring hardware gets dirt cheap--if you search hard enough you may find
someone willing to pay you to haul it away.

> -shar

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 9:16:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <%mH2d.394$Lq3.262@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
stephen <stephen_hope.xx@ntlxworld.com> wrote:
>
>"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>> cabling, don't they ?,

No, they used more expensive cabling - IBM Type-1 cabling is rather hard
to work with, and the hermaphroditic connectors take a whole lot more work
to install than an RJ45.


> is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
>> ring ?,

Yes. Each token ring nic needs its own microprocessor, where an Ethernet
nic has just a few fifos.

>>is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring

yes. Tracking down a problem in a token ring requires young guys with
good ears to run over to a closet and find the connection that's clicking.
The experienced guys who spent too much time in raised floor rooms would
lose their hearing from the incessant AC noise and not be able to hear the
tell-tale click of a machine beaconing.

>> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
>> a typical network with 100 nodes.

Let's use 96 nodes, since ethernet devices tend to come in 12's and token
ring devices in 8's. For a high-end gigabit deployment today, I can drop
two Cisco gigabit switches in for about $20K total. Gig nics are about
$70 each, so another $7000 there, and wire is about $300/drop installed in
a corporate environment, so $57K.

Token ring nics are about $450 each. You can get an 8-port 16-Meg TR
switch for about $10K, and the wire is more expensive and harder to pull
and terminate - we'll call it $500 per drop. So, that's $45K in nics,
$120K in switches, and $50K in wire - $215K, or almost 4 times the cost
for 1/60th the bandwidth.

I put in a switched token ring environment (with ATM backbone) for a state
government agency about 6 years ago, so these costs are pretty close.
They ripped it all out and switched to ethernet after about 3 years.

--
Daniel J McDonald CCIE # 2495, CNX
Visit my website: http://www.austinnetworkdesign.com
Anonymous
September 19, 2004 11:03:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <a92dnZIU2P_bmNPcRVn-pg@io.com>,
Daniel J McDonald <djmcdona@fnord.io.com> wrote:
>In article <%mH2d.394$Lq3.262@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
>stephen <stephen_hope.xx@ntlxworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>>> cabling, don't they ?,
>
>No, they used more expensive cabling - IBM Type-1 cabling is rather hard
>to work with, and the hermaphroditic connectors take a whole lot more work
>to install than an RJ45.
>

When TR came out Ethernet was the original think orange coax with
vampire taps. The IBM design looked very good for wiring an office in
comparison.

The original 100 node/500 meter limit looked fine in 1980. In the
original design I don't think anyone gave any thought as to how to
link thinknet segments together to extend them. For a Data Center
with raised floors, ethernet was fine.

Token ring never got faster than 16Mb/sec as far as I know, and many
people though that 10Mb/sec ethernet was as fast or faster, most of
the time. As soon as 100Mb ethernet with managed hubs hit the street
TR was dead for new projects, except for diehard IBM shops.

The cost of the NIC is small potatos in the budget for a corporation
wiring a facility. Wiring costs are much higher, but even they get
amortized over years. Reliability and Time required to loacte and fix
a problem very important and corporations will pay for it. TR was
ahead of Ethernet in this regard until managed UTP/STP hubs were
developed.

>
>> is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
>>> ring ?,
>
>Yes. Each token ring nic needs its own microprocessor, where an Ethernet
>nic has just a few fifos.
>
>>>is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
>
>yes. Tracking down a problem in a token ring requires young guys with
>good ears to run over to a closet and find the connection that's clicking.
>The experienced guys who spent too much time in raised floor rooms would
>lose their hearing from the incessant AC noise and not be able to hear the
>tell-tale click of a machine beaconing.

What did he say ??? :-)

IME The SNA guys could identify failing equipment without getting out
of the chair in the warm, quit, office.



--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 1:03:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Daniel J McDonald wrote:

> In article <%mH2d.394$Lq3.262@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> stephen <stephen_hope.xx@ntlxworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>>> cabling, don't they ?,
>
> No, they used more expensive cabling - IBM Type-1 cabling is rather hard
> to work with, and the hermaphroditic connectors take a whole lot more work
> to install than an RJ45.

Token Ring runs fine on CAT5 and many Token Ring NICs and access units have
RJ-45 connectors.

>> is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
>>> ring ?,
>
> Yes. Each token ring nic needs its own microprocessor, where an Ethernet
> nic has just a few fifos.

That's odd, I've never seen a microprocessor on a Token Ring board.

>>>is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
>
> yes. Tracking down a problem in a token ring requires young guys with
> good ears to run over to a closet and find the connection that's clicking.

Doesn't work with anything but the hard-relay MAUs. Switches don't click.
The drivers usually report beaconing on any reasonably modern machine.

> The experienced guys who spent too much time in raised floor rooms would
> lose their hearing from the incessant AC noise and not be able to hear the
> tell-tale click of a machine beaconing.
>
>>> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
>>> a typical network with 100 nodes.
>
> Let's use 96 nodes, since ethernet devices tend to come in 12's and token
> ring devices in 8's. For a high-end gigabit deployment today, I can drop
> two Cisco gigabit switches in for about $20K total. Gig nics are about
> $70 each, so another $7000 there, and wire is about $300/drop installed in
> a corporate environment, so $57K.
>
> Token ring nics are about $450 each. You can get an 8-port 16-Meg TR
> switch for about $10K, and the wire is more expensive and harder to pull
> and terminate - we'll call it $500 per drop.

Why does CAT5 for Token Ring cost more per drop than CAT5 for Ethernet?

> So, that's $45K in nics,
> $120K in switches, and $50K in wire - $215K, or almost 4 times the cost
> for 1/60th the bandwidth.

Check the Madge site and Froogle your prices.

> I put in a switched token ring environment (with ATM backbone) for a state
> government agency about 6 years ago, so these costs are pretty close.
> They ripped it all out and switched to ethernet after about 3 years.
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 1:10:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <a92dnZIU2P_bmNPcRVn-pg@io.com>,
> Daniel J McDonald <djmcdona@fnord.io.com> wrote:
>>In article <%mH2d.394$Lq3.262@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
>>stephen <stephen_hope.xx@ntlxworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>>>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>>>> cabling, don't they ?,
>>
>>No, they used more expensive cabling - IBM Type-1 cabling is rather hard
>>to work with, and the hermaphroditic connectors take a whole lot more work
>>to install than an RJ45.
>>
>
> When TR came out Ethernet was the original think orange coax with
> vampire taps. The IBM design looked very good for wiring an office in
> comparison.
>
> The original 100 node/500 meter limit looked fine in 1980. In the
> original design I don't think anyone gave any thought as to how to
> link thinknet segments together to extend them. For a Data Center
> with raised floors, ethernet was fine.
>
> Token ring never got faster than 16Mb/sec as far as I know, and many
> people though that 10Mb/sec ethernet was as fast or faster, most of
> the time. As soon as 100Mb ethernet with managed hubs hit the street
> TR was dead for new projects, except for diehard IBM shops.

IBM was shipping 100 Mb/sec Token Ring ages ago. The trouble with it was
that the switches cost vastly more than for Ethernet. And they still cost
vastly more than for gigabit Ethernet, and no doubt if they're still
available when 10 gig over copper goes mass-market they'll cost vastly more
than that as well. One thing IBM never got, even after the PC hit, was the
effect of competition on cost and performance--for Token Ring to continue
to be a player it would have to go mass-market--there's no way that anybody
could continue to justify it over something that was both much cheaper and
much faster.

> The cost of the NIC is small potatos in the budget for a corporation
> wiring a facility. Wiring costs are much higher, but even they get
> amortized over years.

The cost of an Ethernet NIC. The cost of a Token Ring NIC and switch port
is considerably more than the cost of the drop in most cases.

> Reliability and Time required to loacte and fix
> a problem very important and corporations will pay for it. TR was
> ahead of Ethernet in this regard until managed UTP/STP hubs were
> developed.
>
>>
>>> is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
>>>> ring ?,
>>
>>Yes. Each token ring nic needs its own microprocessor, where an Ethernet
>>nic has just a few fifos.
>>
>>>>is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
>>
>>yes. Tracking down a problem in a token ring requires young guys with
>>good ears to run over to a closet and find the connection that's clicking.
>>The experienced guys who spent too much time in raised floor rooms would
>>lose their hearing from the incessant AC noise and not be able to hear the
>>tell-tale click of a machine beaconing.
>
> What did he say ??? :-)
>
> IME The SNA guys could identify failing equipment without getting out
> of the chair in the warm, quit, office.

His experience with Token Ring is clearly more outdated than mine, and
mine's pretty outdated.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 5:37:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:

> Token ring never got faster than 16Mb/sec as far as I know,

Madge sells 100MBit TR components and IIRC there is at a specification
for 1000MBit TR but no has implemented it (and probably no one ever
will).

Jens
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 5:47:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:

> Token ring never got faster than 16Mb/sec as far as I know,

Madge sells 100MBit TR components and IIRC there is a specification
for 1000MBit TR (802.5v?) but no has implemented it (and probably no
one ever will).

Jens
Anonymous
September 20, 2004 7:03:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <866569zv7u.fsf@quux.de>, usenet02@quux.de says...
> Madge sells 100MBit TR components and IIRC there is at a specification
> for 1000MBit TR but no has implemented it (and probably no one ever
> will).

We actually bought four of them. It had a GigE bridge built in to
interface with 100Mbs TR. We needed the additional BW until we could do
a POTPIE project. PullOutTR and PutInEthernet.


--

hsb

"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
********************************************************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************
September 20, 2004 8:54:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"Jens Link" <usenet02@quux.de> wrote in message
news:866569zv7u.fsf@quux.de...
> adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) writes:
>
> > Token ring never got faster than 16Mb/sec as far as I know,
>
> Madge sells 100MBit TR components and IIRC there is at a specification
> for 1000MBit TR but no has implemented it (and probably no one ever
> will).

Some IBM routers supported 100M T/R (and i think there was a card for a
mainframe front end - ro you could use the router for that).

once you get to 100M, T/R used the same cable interfaces as Ethernet,

BTW 100M T/R was switched, full duplex, so no Tokens, no Ring, no access
mechanism, no beacons. It almost looked like Ethernet with large frames and
some priority signalling......
>
> Jens
--
Regards

Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs
September 20, 2004 9:01:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cilbr51302j@news4.newsguy.com...
> Al Dykes wrote:
>
> > In article <a92dnZIU2P_bmNPcRVn-pg@io.com>,
> > Daniel J McDonald <djmcdona@fnord.io.com> wrote:
> >>In article <%mH2d.394$Lq3.262@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> >>stephen <stephen_hope.xx@ntlxworld.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
> >>>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
> >>>> cabling, don't they ?,
> >>
> >>No, they used more expensive cabling - IBM Type-1 cabling is rather hard
> >>to work with, and the hermaphroditic connectors take a whole lot more
work
> >>to install than an RJ45.
> >>
> >
> > When TR came out Ethernet was the original think orange coax with
> > vampire taps. The IBM design looked very good for wiring an office in
> > comparison.
> >
> > The original 100 node/500 meter limit looked fine in 1980. In the
> > original design I don't think anyone gave any thought as to how to
> > link thinknet segments together to extend them. For a Data Center
> > with raised floors, ethernet was fine.
> >
> > Token ring never got faster than 16Mb/sec as far as I know, and many
> > people though that 10Mb/sec ethernet was as fast or faster, most of
> > the time. As soon as 100Mb ethernet with managed hubs hit the street
> > TR was dead for new projects, except for diehard IBM shops.
>
> IBM was shipping 100 Mb/sec Token Ring ages ago. The trouble with it was
> that the switches cost vastly more than for Ethernet. And they still cost
> vastly more than for gigabit Ethernet, and no doubt if they're still
> available when 10 gig over copper goes mass-market they'll cost vastly
more
> than that as well. One thing IBM never got, even after the PC hit, was
the
> effect of competition on cost and performance--for Token Ring to continue
> to be a player it would have to go mass-market--there's no way that
anybody
> could continue to justify it over something that was both much cheaper and
> much faster.

IBM gave up on networking hardware (incl token ring switches, hubs and
routers) in a technology / patents for money deal a few years back

they formally announced that they would suggest anyone wanting these types
of hardware use Cisco...(i was working of an IBM network reseller at the
time, and this killed that part of our business - apart from 2nd hand gear
for companies who couldnt change quickly....).

Some bits and pieces probably survive - i havent checked for a while.

See www.networking.ibm.com
www.redbooks.ibm.com if you are interested.

>
> > The cost of the NIC is small potatos in the budget for a corporation
> > wiring a facility. Wiring costs are much higher, but even they get
> > amortized over years.
>
> The cost of an Ethernet NIC. The cost of a Token Ring NIC and switch port
> is considerably more than the cost of the drop in most cases.
>
> > Reliability and Time required to loacte and fix
> > a problem very important and corporations will pay for it. TR was
> > ahead of Ethernet in this regard until managed UTP/STP hubs were
> > developed.
> >
> >>
> >>> is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
> >>>> ring ?,
> >>
> >>Yes. Each token ring nic needs its own microprocessor, where an
Ethernet
> >>nic has just a few fifos.
> >>
> >>>>is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
> >>
> >>yes. Tracking down a problem in a token ring requires young guys with
> >>good ears to run over to a closet and find the connection that's
clicking.
> >>The experienced guys who spent too much time in raised floor rooms would
> >>lose their hearing from the incessant AC noise and not be able to hear
the
> >>tell-tale click of a machine beaconing.

MAUs got replaced with better electronic hub designs a long time ago - i
think Synoptics and Proteon were a couple of the early companies - and both
got eaten by others over a decade ago.
> >
> > What did he say ??? :-)
> >
> > IME The SNA guys could identify failing equipment without getting out
> > of the chair in the warm, quit, office.
>
> His experience with Token Ring is clearly more outdated than mine, and
> mine's pretty outdated.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
Regards

Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs
Anonymous
September 21, 2004 12:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hi Sharkie,

token ring has become a standard like Ethernet and other shared media
systems. They are all defined under IEEE 802.*. Token RING (TR) was an
invention of IBM and was offered with different speeds, such as 4 mbps,
16 mbps and there was also standardized a FastTR with 100 mbps.
Historically the big brother technique of FDDI, which was standardized
by ANSI has overtaken the basic idea of FDDI.

It has been working fine and relyable for a long time. It fascinated due
to its predictability and accuracy in function. It was fairly managable
and could be prioritize data in a very early time of development.

The engineers might think they have found THE solution for the market.
But since this market is free and only the one with the best control
concerning expenses and wins survives, this market does not evaluate
genious solutions but costs.

The better product is the foe of the good product. The better product is
the product that works as well as the good ane but develops lower costs.
This is a very simple logic.

The prodoction numbers of Ethernet equipment rose but not one for TR.
Due to company internal processes relying on TR, due to hardware that
relies on TR that can not be given up so easyly, it still is present on
the market. But it only fills a small gap.

Due to minimal presentation on the market, the big companies deny to
support these old technologies, since they are bound to cut off products
that produce costs over wins. This is a self regulating mechanism.

To cover the costs the bills these companies write during last time
period of support on the market make every one responsible for equipment
and costs freeze. This is a good motivation to get ridd of that
technology as fast as possible.

The future belongs to Ethernet. Just see the history

1973 invented with a speed of 2.94 mbps
1980 standardized by IEEE 10.00 mbps
1992 (about) 100.00 mbps
1999 (about) 1000.00 mbps
2001 10000.00 mbps
???? 40000.00 mbps

Sharkie, I hope I could give you an idea of the market function of
products. Network equipment is a product like any other. Mean While it
is used in the production chain of allmost all products on the market,
such having a burden influence on prices per peace.

Good luck to you and continue asking questions. There is a lot of
expertise out here.

Heinz Schlagregen

Industrial Engineeer
Freelance Network Trainer
Project Manager
hg.schlagregen@t-online.de
sharkie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
> ?
> Can anyone explain me why ?
> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
> a typical network with 100 nodes.
>
> -shar
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 3:41:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

stephen wrote:
>
> A bit irrelevant now as i dont know of anyone making new T/R cards, hubs
> etc. (well - maybe Cisco et al will sell you an interface for a router, or
> IBM a NIC card for a mainframe....)

You can still get token ring interfaces for Nortel/Bay/wellfleet
routers. Madge (which had a very large percentage of the market share
for token ring in fortune 500 sites) still makes PCI token ring cards
for PC's.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 3:45:45 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Daniel J McDonald wrote:
> In article <%mH2d.394$Lq3.262@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>,
> stephen <stephen_hope.xx@ntlxworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>>>expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>>>cabling, don't they ?,
>
>
> No, they used more expensive cabling - IBM Type-1 cabling is rather hard
> to work with, and the hermaphroditic connectors take a whole lot more work
> to install than an RJ45.

99% of the installations I worked with used cat5 UTP cable with rj45's
for tokenring. Most token ring boards manufactured in th 90's in fact
needed a special adapter to use them with type1 cable.
Anonymous
September 22, 2004 3:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
>
> Token ring never got faster than 16Mb/sec as far as I know, and many
> people though that 10Mb/sec ethernet was as fast or faster, most of
> the time. As soon as 100Mb ethernet with managed hubs hit the street
> TR was dead for new projects, except for diehard IBM shops.

It got up to 100mb. You can still buy new 100mb token ring cards
(backward compatible with 4/16) to this day.

It's not dead yet. It's still around. I know out local hospital, (which
is internationally known) still uses token ring.
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 11:04:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

sharkie wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
> ?
> Can anyone explain me why ?
> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
> a typical network with 100 nodes.

It is not possible to construct a Token Ring network with performance
equivalent to the previous generation of Ethernet at _any_ price, let alone
the _current_ generation just coming to market.

The only 100 Mb/sec Token Ring NIC still in production costs approximately
ten times as much as a cheap gigabit Ethernet NIC or about 3 times as much
as a fancy one. The price of switches is astronomical.

The reason Token Ring costs more is that it is based on technology which
must be licensed from IBM. Further, since it is now a low-volume niche
product the economies of scale that have brought down the price of far more
complex Ethernet hardware do not apply to its production.

In any case, Token Ring is of mostly academic interest at this point--there
are still Token Ring shops out there, but they are few and their numbers
are decreasing.

> -shar

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
February 1, 2005 12:13:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
>
> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
> ?
> Can anyone explain me why ?
> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
> a typical network with 100 nodes.
>
> -shar

I can't tell you why, except to say that why would it matter? Why would
anyone want Token ring in the first place with the scalability and speeds of
ethernet?
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 4:50:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

(snip)

> The reason Token Ring costs more is that it is based on technology which
> must be licensed from IBM. Further, since it is now a low-volume niche
> product the economies of scale that have brought down the price of far more
> complex Ethernet hardware do not apply to its production.


Maybe the government should file an anti-trust suit against
the ethernet monopoly. Having competition is supposed to
be good, isn't it? :}

-- glen
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 10:00:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> The reason Token Ring costs more is that it is based on technology which
>> must be licensed from IBM. Further, since it is now a low-volume niche
>> product the economies of scale that have brought down the price of far
>> more complex Ethernet hardware do not apply to its production.
>
>
> Maybe the government should file an anti-trust suit against
> the ethernet monopoly. Having competition is supposed to
> be good, isn't it? :}

<snicker>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Not mentioned in this entire thread was that in the early days when TR
and Enet were starting, IBM wasn't concerned with small shops. They were
a bother. At about 91 or so when a 10baseT port on a hub got down to
$100 a technically adept person could network a few computers and
printers on their own. With TR IBM just ignored you. As the mass of
small businesses and even departments within larger businesses started
buying Enet because they "could" the economics started to swing.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:21:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

David Ross wrote:
> Not mentioned in this entire thread was that in the early days when TR
> and Enet were starting, IBM wasn't concerned with small shops. They were
> a bother. At about 91 or so when a 10baseT port on a hub got down to
> $100 a technically adept person could network a few computers and
> printers on their own. With TR IBM just ignored you. As the mass of
> small businesses and even departments within larger businesses started
> buying Enet because they "could" the economics started to swing.

No. IBM DID go after smaller shops - that is what the IBM baseband and
IBM broadband network adapters were for. Not that ayone actually BOUGHT
them. Small shops at the time did not use ethernet either - THAT was to
expensive (an ISA 10base2 card would set you back over $750.00, not to
mention the cost of stringing coax all over) Most small shops (under 100
or so people) tended to use arcnet, and SMC was the brand of choice.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 6:47:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

>> Not mentioned in this entire thread was that in the early days when TR
>> and Enet were starting, IBM wasn't concerned with small shops. They
>> were a bother. At about 91 or so when a 10baseT port on a hub got down
>> to $100 a technically adept person could network a few computers and
>> printers on their own. With TR IBM just ignored you. As the mass of
>> small businesses and even departments within larger businesses started
>> buying Enet because they "could" the economics started to swing.
>
>
> No. IBM DID go after smaller shops - that is what the IBM baseband and
> IBM broadband network adapters were for. Not that ayone actually BOUGHT
> them. Small shops at the time did not use ethernet either - THAT was to
> expensive (an ISA 10base2 card would set you back over $750.00, not to
> mention the cost of stringing coax all over) Most small shops (under 100
> or so people) tended to use arcnet, and SMC was the brand of choice.

They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
you went to a reseller. In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
consideration.

IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
lack of buyers.

In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
into the insurance agency market. IBM continually pressed us to switch.
Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
would have cost the users features and productivity.

And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
out by PCs. :) 
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:44:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

David Ross wrote:

>
> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
> you went to a reseller.

Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
at the time)

> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
> consideration.

TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!

Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
They's teach that in all their official certification classes.

>
> IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
> do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
> about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
> lack of buyers.
>
> In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
> into the insurance agency market.

Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?

> IBM continually pressed us to switch.
> Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
> been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
> selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
> their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
> doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
> would have cost the users features and productivity.
>
> And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
> out by PCs. :) 
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 8:53:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

T. Sean Weintz wrote:

> Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
> ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
> They's teach that in all their official certification classes.

That and larger packets.

> Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?
>

I used to support Data General, DEC, Prime and Collins. The Collins systems
were actually MIL spec versions of IBM gear, made under license.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:37:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

> Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?

Wang. But not the VS stuff. The 2200s. And if you know anything about
those besides they existed, you're a rare person. :) 

IBM was pushing us to use a funky workstation thing that could run up to
5 terminals for the small end, and Series/1 for larger folks. But to
meet some of our communications needs we'd have to dual boot the entire
office on the Series/1s plus the software on those would not be
compatible with the lower end workstations. Can you imagine a store
having to reboot and take down the cash registers to get an inventory
update? 20 times a day? We'd have never made back our investment, much
less ever make any money. These guys were used to selling into
departments or the IT staff of outfits like Travelers, Aetna, etc...
where the corporate budget covered the expense "for the greater good".
They just didn't know how to deal with a competitive environment.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 12:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <1114r9nd1oblq3f@news.supernews.com>,
T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
>David Ross wrote:
>
>>
>> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
>> you went to a reseller.
>
>Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
>support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
>at the time)
>
>> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
>> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
>> consideration.
>
>TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
>being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
>Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
>nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
>STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
>down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
>emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!
>
>Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
>ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
>They's teach that in all their official certification classes.
>



Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
unmanagable by IBM standards.




>>
>> IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
>> do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
>> about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
>> lack of buyers.
>>
>> In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
>> into the insurance agency market.
>
>Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?
>
>> IBM continually pressed us to switch.
>> Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
>> been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
>> selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
>> their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
>> doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
>> would have cost the users features and productivity.
>>
>> And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
>> out by PCs. :) 


--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:09:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <1114r9nd1oblq3f@news.supernews.com>,
> T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
>>David Ross wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
>>> you went to a reseller.
>>
>>Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
>>support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
>>at the time)
>>
>>> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
>>> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
>>> consideration.
>>
>>TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
>>being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
>>Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
>>nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
>>STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
>>down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
>>emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!
>>
>>Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
>>ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
>>They's teach that in all their official certification classes.
>>
>
>
>
> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
> unmanagable by IBM standards.

Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running Ethernet
needed and couldn't afford :( 

>>> IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
>>> do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
>>> about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
>>> lack of buyers.
>>>
>>> In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
>>> into the insurance agency market.
>>
>>Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?
>>
>>> IBM continually pressed us to switch.
>>> Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
>>> been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
>>> selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
>>> their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
>>> doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
>>> would have cost the users features and productivity.
>>>
>>> And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
>>> out by PCs. :) 
>
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 3:59:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <cuvp0l1210h@news1.newsguy.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> In article <1114r9nd1oblq3f@news.supernews.com>,
>> T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
>>>David Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
>>>> you went to a reseller.
>>>
>>>Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
>>>support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
>>>at the time)
>>>
>>>> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
>>>> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
>>>> consideration.
>>>
>>>TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
>>>being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
>>>Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
>>>nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
>>>STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
>>>down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
>>>emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!
>>>
>>>Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
>>>ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
>>>They's teach that in all their official certification classes.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
>> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
>> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
>> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
>> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
>> unmanagable by IBM standards.
>
>Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running Ethernet
>needed and couldn't afford :( 
>


I still have the Fluke TDR that I talked my boss into buying when we
picked up responsibility for support of a small business that had a
ThinWire LAN that been installed by a TV cable installer that used
push-on BNC connectors and splices all over the place without using
the crimp ring.

I walked away from a serial line datascope in 1992. ($35,000 suitcase
unit with SNA, Decnet, and TCP protocols because it looked like modems
were dead, and it was _HEAVY_ The web and home internet took off after
that and I could have used it.




--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 1:03:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
> unmanagable by IBM standards.

But the 2 to 50 computer networks could never afford those tools or the
staff to monitor them. And thats the market that fueled the growth of
ethernet while token ring was growing only at the rate of installed IBM
terminals and PCs pretending to be 327x and such terminals.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 3:03:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
> unmanagable by IBM standards.

Very true. Even today, we are talking about "how do we show true end
to end user experience..."


--

hsb


"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
**************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 3:04:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running
> Ethernet needed and couldn't afford :( 

So everyone carried a terminator in their tool box! :)  Binary search
works pretty well :) 


--

hsb


"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
**************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 3:04:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hansang Bae wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running
>> Ethernet needed and couldn't afford :( 
>
> So everyone carried a terminator in their tool box! :)  Binary search
> works pretty well :) 

There was one network that was having intermittent problems that I couldn't
figure out. Finally broke down and bought a TDR. Took me about ten
minutes to find that it was configured as a star of buses with three
terminators and a tee connecter where a repeater belonged (the repeater was
sitting there but somebody had decided to replace it with a tee connector).
If I hadn't gone after it with the TDR I'd have never found either
though--you had to _know_ that there was something there before you'd do
enough digging to actually find it--it was well-hidden.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 9:02:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"CJ" <chrisj@illicom.net> wrote in message
news:SbxLd.326$Sd.63100@newshog.newsread.com...
> "sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
>> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
>> ?
>> Can anyone explain me why ?
>> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
>> a typical network with 100 nodes.
>>
>> -shar
>
> I can't tell you why, except to say that why would it matter? Why would
> anyone want Token ring in the first place with the scalability and speeds
> of ethernet?
>

Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
done sending.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 9:02:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Sean Pinegar wrote:

(snip)

> Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
> the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
> can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
> done sending.

Well, token passing does take some time, especially on a
large ring. TR does have an advantage in that arbitration
time increases as the ring gets bigger, without a fixed
maximum round trip time.

Ethernet arbitration (collision resolution) is fairly
fast, especially on a small (in distance) network.

TR hardware, especially including the logic to regenerate
lost tokens, is significantly more complex. With enough
economy of scale more complex isn't always bad, but TR has
not done as well in economy of scale as ethernet.

Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.

-- glen
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:28:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <w9bIe.7$KX4.2@okepread05>,
Sean Pinegar <sean.pinegar@cox.net> wrote:
:Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
:the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
:can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
:D one sending.

I was never a student of Token Ring, but I know that what you are saying
is debatible.

In order to be the transmitter, the host must have received the
Token from downstream. When a host receives the Token and it has
nothing to send, it allows the Token to continue onward, but
if it does have something to send then it grabs the Token, starts
sending, and doesn't emit a Token until afterwards (if I understand
correctly.)

Suppose that A and B are communicating, and that they are adjacent
in the ring and that there are other members of the ring (say C..Z).
'A' transmits, lets go of the token, B grabs the token, replies to A.
Now, B releases the token -- and it has to flow through C, D, E,
all the way to Z before finding its way back to A. During that
time, the only signal on the wires is the token itself.

There are some who would argue that the time during which the token
is in transit is not "usage of the bandwidth that the network
is capable of at all times", and thus that Token Ring does not
allow "100% usage". *Close* to 100%, perhaps, but not 100%.

It depends on what your definition is of "usage of bandwidth"
and of what "the network is capable of".

Keep in mind that CSMA ethernet does not -disallow- complete
occupancy of the wire with a combination of preamble, packets,
and minimal intra-frame gaps (IFG): it just becomes -unlikely- as
the number of devices that want to talk increases. Some would say
that the IFG is wasted bandwidth; others would say that the IFG
is simply a necessary part of "what the network is capable of".

--
"Who Leads?" / "The men who must... driven men, compelled men."
"Freak men."
"You're all freaks, sir. But you always have been freaks.
Life is a freak. That's its hope and glory." -- Alfred Bester, TSMD
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:28:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Walter Roberson wrote:

> In article <w9bIe.7$KX4.2@okepread05>,
> Sean Pinegar <sean.pinegar@cox.net> wrote:
> :Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
> :the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
> :can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
> :D one sending.
>
> I was never a student of Token Ring, but I know that what you are saying
> is debatible.

> In order to be the transmitter, the host must have received the
> Token from downstream. When a host receives the Token and it has
> nothing to send, it allows the Token to continue onward, but
> if it does have something to send then it grabs the Token, starts
> sending, and doesn't emit a Token until afterwards (if I understand
> correctly.)

One result of the above is that it is more fair in letting
all hosts have an equal chance to use the wire. Though it
does that independent of the frame size, so hosts with larger
frames get a larger fraction of the bandwidth.

> Suppose that A and B are communicating, and that they are adjacent
> in the ring and that there are other members of the ring (say C..Z).
> 'A' transmits, lets go of the token, B grabs the token, replies to A.
> Now, B releases the token -- and it has to flow through C, D, E,
> all the way to Z before finding its way back to A. During that
> time, the only signal on the wires is the token itself.

If only one host is transmitting it takes one token round trip
time between frames. That is much less than 100%. If two are
(more usual with ACKs coming back) then it is one round trip
time per pair. Assuming no token loss, that is.

On the other hand, the ethernet capture effect gives more
bandwidth to a host that can keep the wire busy. That may
increase the usage for a situation involving heavy traffic
from a small number of hosts.

> There are some who would argue that the time during which the token
> is in transit is not "usage of the bandwidth that the network
> is capable of at all times", and thus that Token Ring does not
> allow "100% usage". *Close* to 100%, perhaps, but not 100%.

How close will depend on ring size and frame size.

For ethernet, it depends on the (wire) distance between hosts
actually transmitting and frame size. Jumbo frames can
be used to increase the utilization in some cases.

-- glen
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:24:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Sean Pinegar wrote:

> Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the
> bandwidth the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that
> only 1 person can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them
> untill they are done sending.

That advantage disappeared with switches and full duplex ethernet.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:28:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.

With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would have
to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
work.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 4:35:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> Sean Pinegar wrote:
>
>> Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the
>> bandwidth the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that
>> only 1 person can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them
>> untill they are done sending.
>
> That advantage disappeared with switches and full duplex ethernet.

Further, latency's a bitch.

The main benefit of Token Ring has always been that it was the Official IBM
Way, however even IBM has abandoned it.

The cost was always due to IBM's license fees and not to anything inherent
in the network. And like everything in the PC market from which IBM
attempted to extract royalties, it failed in the market.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 5:10:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

>>Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.

> With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would have
> to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
> work.

If you want some TR parts you can probably find someone giving it
away, though maybe you would pay shipping. Price them on eBay.

Sometimes Fry's has 1000baseT cards for less than $10 now.

I bought a five port 1000baseT switch for $30 from Fry's.

-- glen
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 5:14:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> Sean Pinegar wrote:

>>Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the
>>bandwidth the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that
>>only 1 person can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them
>>untill they are done sending.

> That advantage disappeared with switches and full duplex ethernet.

Not until flow control. It is too easy to overflow the buffers
in the switch if you run ports at 100%.

Consider a server with a few clients, and each client sends
at 100% to the server. The link to the server is now
at 300%. Oops.

-- glen
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 11:51:59 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

> The main benefit of Token Ring has always been that it was the Official
> IBM Way, however even IBM has abandoned it.

One advantage to some, is that you knew the maximum time a computer had to
wait, before sending. You didn't know, with unswitched ethernet. It also
supports far larger packets than ethernet.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 1:20:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The main benefit of Token Ring has always been that it was the Official
>> IBM Way, however even IBM has abandoned it.
>
> One advantage to some, is that you knew the maximum time a computer had to
> wait, before sending. You didn't know, with unswitched ethernet. It also
> supports far larger packets than ethernet.

Deterministic degradation, they call it. Arcnet had the same. Arcnet
advocates would tell you that 2.5 Mb/sec Arcnet drastically outperformed 10
Mb/sec Ethernet in LANs with four PCs running Word Perfect due to this.



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 3:16:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <UYSdnZ2dnZ0MuhbrnZ2dncwWbN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@rogers.com>,
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>
>> Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.
>
>With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would have
>to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
>work.



People that run large networks look beyond the $10/nic cost and pay
attention to the ability to manage a network and diagnose and fix
problems.

IMO until managed ethernet UTP hubs came on the market TR had Ethernet
beat hands-down for wiring to the desktop based on MTTR/MTBF. Even
then, the ability for IBM SNA-based managenent to identify faults down
to the desktop and dispatch the right repairman was impressive. A FDDI
ring beat either TR or ethernet for the building backbone.

To this day I'd pick TR over thinwire ethernet for a large business
LAN where MTTR/MTBF and manpower costs were important.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 7:12:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <UYSdnZ2dnZ0MuhbrnZ2dncwWbN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@rogers.com>,
> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>>glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>
>>> Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.
>>
>>With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would
>>have
>>to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
>>work.
>
>
>
> People that run large networks look beyond the $10/nic cost and pay
> attention to the ability to manage a network and diagnose and fix
> problems.
>
> IMO until managed ethernet UTP hubs came on the market TR had Ethernet
> beat hands-down for wiring to the desktop based on MTTR/MTBF. Even
> then, the ability for IBM SNA-based managenent to identify faults down
> to the desktop and dispatch the right repairman was impressive. A FDDI
> ring beat either TR or ethernet for the building backbone.
>
> To this day I'd pick TR over thinwire ethernet for a large business
> LAN where MTTR/MTBF and manpower costs were important.

That's kind of like saying you'd pick a Silver Ghost over a Model T. If
those were the choices then yes, it's the right one if you need
reliability. But if you throw a 2005 Toyota into the mix . . .


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
!