VanLUG Email Archive
Alan Hodgson (ahodgson@simkin.com)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:11:48 -0800
On Fri, Feb 26, 1999 at 10:41:26AM -0800, Raymond D. Mereniuk wrote:
> Wed, 24 Feb 1999 A Z <arek_z@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > as it takes three NT servers to replace one
> > > Novell server
> >
> > That I don't agree with. Yes, NT is a slow ass piece of OS, but 3 to
> > 1...maybe, but I wouldn't say that.
>
> If the situation is a busy Netware system where NDS is used the
> following will most likely be required to replace the functionality of
> the Netware system: NT Server #1 PDC, NT #2 BDC plus file and
> print server, and NT #3 application server. At this point the three
> NT servers will offer less performance and functionality than the one
> Netware system it replaced. The NT systems will require more
> hardware resources than the single Netware box which was
> replaced and the application server response time will slower than
> the single Netware system.
>
And that's with NetWare 4.11 .... apparently, 5.0 is even faster - they've
shown a single-processor 5.0 server blow the socks off a 4-CPU 4.11
server.
It's not necessarily the case that a NetWare (or even Linux server) is 3
or 4 times as fast as a given NT server (for certain functions), its
primarily that the NetWare or UNIX server can handle multiple tasks, under
heavy load, and continue to function. It is my sorry experience
that NT servers do not A) do more than one task well, or B) handle
any kind of heavy load gracefully. Both situations lead to so many
problems that NT shops end up running only a single task per machine,
and overbuilding each machine so that their load is not heavy
relative to the theoretical capacity of the machine. If you
have unlimited funds (and after all, the PC's are a lot cheaper
than extra bodies to keep flaky systems running), this makes a certain
kind of sense, especially if you don't know any better, or absolutely
have to run a certain piece of software that only runs on NT, or
have an LOB manager decree that you must run NT.
Not knowing better is a poor excuse at best. The 2nd situation is
being resolved as more application developers start to realize that
NT is not used universally and that they need to develop for
other systems. I have no idea how to solve the last problem,
other than to say that the recent spate of anti-Microsoft and
pro-Linux (and even pro-NetWare) press will go a long way
towards reversing the management perception that NT is the
be-all and end-all of operating systems.
The frequent Gartner Group and other studies that show Microsoft
solutions costing far more per seat that competitive products
don't hurt. A Windows 2000 disaster along the lines of or even
worse than the problems with NT 4.0 won't hurt, either. Just
repeat to yourselves, 80% new code ....
> I find Netware integrates nicely with Linux. If the Netware system is
> used for mail, behind a Linux IP masquerading system, the Linux
> system is easily configured to make that happen. A Linux
> workstation can easily log-on to the Netware system and access
> the file system. The Linux system is easily configured to allow the
> Netware system to run a secure web server and Groupwise.
>
Caldera's NDS ports for Linux make this integration even easier, and
will continue to do so. One can even run a NetWare server as
a process under Linux for file/print and NDS if one wants (although
I should probably try this out before suggesting it).
-- Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 26 Feb 1999 - 15:15:30 PST