Re: [WinMac] Advice request: Dual platform Ethernet schools

Liam Helmer(lhelmer[at]axion.net)
Mon, 7 Dec 98 15:38:16 -0800

> A) Despite the things you may be reading, NT's Services for Macintosh is
>actually quite good... Just be sure the server is running Service Pack 4
>(SP4) to fix the jumping icon problem;

That being said, there are some problems with aliases, for instance, on
Windows NT servers. Also (somebody correct me if I'm wrong), NT doesn't
do appleshare over IP, thus increasing the bandwidth use by the Macs and
making the Macs and the network generally slower. Also, although it's an
"M$ Flagship Product", the services for Macintosh are generally less
robust than the services for NT, and there is the risk of Macs becoming
second-class citizens on an MS product at any time they so choose.

> B) NT is actually quite easy to administer: I had no problem training my
>customers who used AppleShare Server 4.0.2 and 4.2.2 to learn to administer
>NT/S 3.51 & NT/S 4.0;
>
> C) There ARE 100Base-TX ethernet cards for the 5260's you manage: You'll
>need to use the LC-compatible PDS slot on the motherboard. HOWEVER, I
>recommend sticking with 10Base-T for those segments;

I agree, you won't get much increase in performance for the 100Base-T on
a 5260... the architecture is too old to take advantage of it... Plus,
10Base-T Hubs are much cheaper right now than 100Base-T Switches.

> D) You can set up one machine with Apple Internet Router 3.0.1 to route
>LocalTalk segments to ethernet segments. Any Mac will suffice for this
>duty: However I prefer to use a Quadra with System 7.1/System Update 3, or
>System 7.5.1... Both using AppleTalk 58.1.5, which is available on the
>NSI-ZM 1.5.1 installer. Try not to use a PowerPC and/or Open Transport,
>because in both cases Apple Internet Router 3.0.1 will run in 68020
>emulation and/or Open Transport's AppleTalk emulation;

Actually, I've had really good luck with Open Transport on system 7.1 for
this task. It was rock-solid (better than System 7.5 for sure), and it
worked surprisingly quickly on an LC 475... I had it set up with a
variety of pods, each with a 475 passing signals from about 6 localtalk
computers to the LAN as a whole. Also, my personal preference for this
situation would be using IP Netrouter, which is a robust (and cheap)
product that you can get from www.sustworks.com. Much better than Vicom
Internet Gateway, and easy to set up... although I haven't yet tried
Apple Internet Router, and can't speak for that piece of software,
although it doesn't support doing multiple localtalk zones, as below.

> E) If you use A.I.R 3.0.1, you can address both serial ports to segment
>the LocalTalk traffic into 2 separate zones. This will reduce packet
>collisions accordingly. You could use the Printer port for the Mac Classics
>lab and the Modem port for the Mac Plus lab;

Again, my personal preference is using separate machines for this task,
rather than 1 machine with multiple ports configured. The reason is that
the modem and printer ports on macs operate on a shared bandwidth system,
so that the more you have going through the printer port, the less is
available on the modem port. However, it does make it easier to set up.
having it all running on one mac. I just like the "diffused" method of
network design for such things.

> For cross-platform shops, I prefer the Asante 10/100 PCI cards because
>they have drivers not only for Macs and x86 machines, but also for
>NT/Alpha's -- With built-in ARC ("BIOS") support for the card since the
>Asante NICs use the DEC 21140 chipset;

Good choice... make sure you have the latest mac driver for OS 8.0 and
higher though... otherwise there are some glitches with this card.

> H) Lastly, I think your opinion of AppleShare IP 6.x is over-rated,
>especially since it runs the risk of becoming "Steveified." NT4 has a
>planned upgrade path through Windows 2000 (formerly NT5); and M$ has
>committed over a *billion* dollars to its development. ASIP is just an
>add-on that gets limited support... NT is M$' flagship product series that
>Bill Gates is betting his company on.

.... and the Services for Macintosh runs the risk of being obsoleted by
gates, same difference. What I would suggest, however, is if you're
running AppleShareIP, get a G3 machine to do it, as you'll want to be
able to put OSX Server on the machine when it comes out -> from the looks
of things, AppleShareIP is going to be moved to the new OS as soon as
possible, as it has a lot of better features build it that will make
AppleShareIP work better.

> It's your choice... You could very well end up in a dead end with ASIP
>6.x... Just ask the hundreds of Apple Network Server 500 and 700 owners who
>were left hanging ("Steveified") with AIX 4.1.4.1...

OK, so you don't have modern Mac Apps supported on AIX anymore. However,
the trade-off is the development of OSX, which is the Mac OS entirely
based on Unix... It's way better than what AIX was anyways. Whatever.

>I am inclined to think the best approach for our school is to run two
>servers, one NT and one AppleShareIP 6.1 (thus re-deploying five of the
>seven servers we currently use to client status), perhaps each with a RAID
>HD system. The Macs could primarily use the AppleShare server and the
>Wintels, the NT server, but if we mirrored critical pieces of software on
>each server we would still be in business if one goes down. We have in mind
>putting most-frequently-used software on each client HD and reserving the
>servers for student files and less-used software. Our NT labs are currently
>used for Career Resources (one 28.8 modem proxied into 7 Wintels),
>Keyboarding, and various Information Technology courses. The Mac labs are
>used for word processing, Pagemaker and PhotoShop yearbook production,
>MiniCad 7 drafting classes, and delivering Math software.

You may well be right... and once the network is upgraded, this solution
could work well -> each OS getting a natively made server system. And,
yes, try to keep the essential stuff on the individual hard drives... I
hear assimilator (www.stairways.com), is invaluable for this on
Macintosh, although I don't know of the Windows equivalent to this.

My only other recommendations would be to use switches, and try to reduce
the network "distance" from client to server whereever possible.

Cheers,
Liam

--=----------next-message-----------=

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Dec 20 1998 - 15:58:58 PST