by Received: by ciaibbs.colorado.edu (cu.generic.890828)
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu (ugav2.cc.uga.edu) by boulder.Colorado.EDU with SMTP id AA14961
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 9649; Tue, 04 Feb 92 06:51:40 EST
Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.07) id 3450; Tue, 04 Feb 92 06:45:27 EST
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 06:43:37 -0500
Status: R
Your message is being returned to you unprocessed because it seems to have been
already sent to the INFO-VAX list. That is, a message with identical body (but
possibly different headers) has been posted to the list recently, either by you
or by someone else. If you have a good reason to resend this message to the
list (for instance because half of the outbound spool files were lost in a disk
crash at some intermediate node), please alter the message text in some way
before resending it. Note that altering the "Subject:" line or adding blank
lines at the top or bottom of the message is not sufficient; you should instead
add a line at the top explaining why you are re-sending the message, for the
benefit of the list membership.
------------------------- Rejected message (50 lines) -------------------------
Received: from CUNYVM.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id
2684; Tue, 04 Feb 92 06:40:54 EST
Received: from CUNYVM by CUNYVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4802; Tue,
04 Feb 92 06:40:40 EST
Received: from CRVAX.SRI.COM by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
Tue, 04 Feb 92 06:40:39 EST
Received: From ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU ([128.32.133.1]) by CRVAX.SRI.COM with TCP;
Mon, 3 FEB 92 18:56:26 PST
Received: by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (5.63/1.43)
id AA21497; Mon, 3 Feb 92 18:51:01 -0800
Received: from USENET by ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU with netnews
Date: 29 Jan 92 04:47:38 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Subject: Network Utilization
COMP.OS.VMS
We are currently experimenting with network monitors on our ethernet WAN
and are unable to get some information that we need to properly "tune"
the network....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- We are aware that 25% (with 50% peak) utilization is within Q: What is the average and peak network utilization Q: What circumstances degrade the performance of a DECRouter? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know that the above questions are quite "general"; however, I will be Please reply by email when possible. Ed Toupin
reasonable limits; however, we also found that, under some
circumstances, routers may not operate efficiently above
25%.
allowable for peak performance of a DECRouter?
more than happy to give more detail if required.
TTTI