Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Question\s+About\s+3172\s+Offload\s+With\s+MVS\s+TCPIP\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Question\s+About\s+3172\s+Offload\s+With\s+MVS\s+TCPIP\s*$/: 3 ]

Total 3 documents matching your query.

1. Question About 3172 Offload With MVS TCPIP (score: 1): Author: James SPORER <James.Sporer AT CCMAIL.ADP.WISC DOT EDU>; Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:39:02 CDT; We are currently running ADSM version 2.1 and IBM MVS TCPIP version 3.1 on a 3172 look-a-like device without the offload feature. We are planning to replace the current hardware with a 3172. Does it; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1996-10/msg00405.html (10,651 bytes)
2. Re: Question About 3172 Offload With MVS TCPIP (score: 1): Author: Jeff Koeberl <koeberl AT EXECPC DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 11:52:34 -0500; My experience has been that offload cuts your host TCP cycles by less than 10%, while cutting your throughput in half. I believe old IBM 3172 performance doc showed that is in the ballpark. BTW: If y; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1996-10/msg00419.html (11,848 bytes)
3. Re: Question About 3172 Offload With MVS TCPIP (score: 1): Author: Kevin Balmer <Kevin_Balmer AT NOTES.PROVIDIAN DOT COM>; Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:28:38 -0400; We're running a Pentium 3172 with ICP (Interconnect Control Program) versus the offload feature. We saw a performance boost to ADSM when we upgraded to the Pentium and when we switched from offload t; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/ADSM-L/1996-10/msg00421.html (10,553 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 3
Page: [1]