Perle 833 Remote Access Server, like the other servers in this review, combines ease of use with a simple, but flexible management station that runs on nearly every Windows platform. The 833 was an average performer in our throughput tests. A middle-of-the-road server with a price per port of $456, Perle 833 should suffice for most, though it lacks the detailed logging found in Waymark and LanRover and requires a reboot for system changes.

The Perle 833 offers both IP and IPX management. Its unique feature: It lets you configure IP addressing from the front panel, so you don't have to connect to a management port using a terminal. We installed Perle 833 Manager software and were ready to roll. This product's GUI was easy to navigate and we were able to configure multiple modems in one fell swoop. Because the Perle 833 requires external modems, it includes a series of manufacturer configurations from which to choose, plus a custom setting.

Perle 833 offers complete logging of user connections and data transferred, as well as configuration and management changes. Although the logging is adequate for general management and accounting, it lacks LanRover's and Waymark's depth; Perle 833 doesn't display PPP negotiations and protocol failures, making troubleshooting difficult.

The 833 offers a range of features for small offices, including broad protocol support--TCP/IP, IPX, NetBEUI and LLC (Logical Link Control)--over the modems; its more advanced features include IP and IPX filters. During testing, we set up a simple rule to block IP access to a single server. (Note that the IP filters are based on addresses only.) While this methodology doesn't provide iron-clad security, it does offer some protection against users depleting dial-up resources.

Zoom Telephonics Zoom/Access 8

Zoom/Access 8 is simple to manage with a straightforward HTTP interface. However, it lacks support for IPX, SNMP, IP address management and strong authentication methods. These are key features of the other remote-access servers in the Access 8's price-per-port range of $296, such as Mississippi and Century 2008. In the lab, Access 8's configuration provided helpful hints, and we were happy that configuration changes didn't require reboots. But Access 8's performance was dismal with the smaller packet size and improved with larger packets.

Zoom/Access 8 is managed through a Web interface. When first installing Zoom/Access 8 on the network, we needed to change our workstation IP address to place it and the workstation on the same IP network. At that point, we changed Zoom/Access 8's IP address to our own network and were up and running. Zoom/Access 8 offers few configuration options, but we still had to configure every port individually. IP addresses are statically set on the ports.

Zoom/Access 8 provides some excellent logging for call negotiation, but the logs are dynamic and aren't saved during power cycles. The device has a detailed Quickview screen, which we used to monitor test progress. Quickview displays port statistics, such as bytes transferred, user name and connect duration. This provides an overview of Access 8, though we had to refresh the screen manually to get current data.

Send your comments on this article to Mike Fratto at mfratto@nwc.com.

How We Tested

To assess remote-access server performance, we devised a test that would indicate how well these servers can pass data. We broke down the issue of performance into two parts: how well the modems can move bits across the wire and how well the servers can route a large number of packets. We sent two data streams and tracked the servers' response. We used a 512-byte packet and a 1,024-byte packet, which are common packet sizes for Internet and e-mail traffic.

Using Midnight Networks Avalanch/RA system, we brought up all eight ports on the servers and began sending data at 10 pps (packets per second). If the data was passed with less than a 5 percent loss, the pps rate doubled. If all the data was passed successfully, the pps rate was doubled again. When packet loss reaches 5 percent or greater, the pps rate drops to a number halfway between the current failed rate and the last successful rate. The pps rate increases until packet loss is greater than 5 percent. This binary search method yields the fastest transfer rate with an acceptable packet loss.

We also tested these servers to see how well they handled the pressure of constant calls. This test indicated the worse-case scenario of calling in traffic. Can a busy remote-access server still accept calls? All the servers compared in this review completed these tests, connecting every call offered.