[WinMac] Re: Hardware & software

Daniel L. Schwartz(expresso[at]snip.net)
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:16:33 -0500

        Hello!

        I'll reply to this intelligent response from John inline...

At 12:04 PM 3/23/99 -0500, John Welch wrote:

> That would be a valid comparison if Apple was as low-quality a vendor
>as say Dell, or Gateway.
>I have an 8600/300 webserver averages 90+ day uptimes, and in two years,
>has had one hardware failure, a burnt power supply, (this is also
>attached to a UPS of some size).

        Two years ago, I would agree with you. But today, Dell, and especially
Gateway, has drastically improved their phone and onsite service; while
Apple has gone the other way. And Whoa be the business that owns a Performa...

> I have a Compaq ProLiant 1600R that we still haven't been able to
>install the hotswap power supplies because Compaq hasn't sent us one
>that functions yet, (waiting on try #3).

        I use the ProLiant only as an example because it is the most common.
Personally, I prefer the DEC Prioris or the IBM PC Server 325 for midrange
servers... And I stress the word "midrange" as you'll see below...

> I have a G3/300 server that has only had one fault, and that is one
>drive in a mirrored set went bad once. Since it was in a hotswap drive
>tower, I swapped, rebuilt the mirror, no harm done. It's average uptime
>has been 3 to 4 months.

         A failed hard drive in a G3 (beige?) server?! Hmmm... This goes back to
what FWB recommended years ago about installing a 7200 RPM drive in nothing
smaller than a Quadra 950 case, due to cooling issues. And the 8600 case
still lacks the airflow around the hard drives that plagued the Quadra 800
- through - 9500 series cases. This was BAD design in 1992; and it remained
all the way through the 8600...

        APS addressed this issue with their sideflow coolers. Please see:
 <>

>I worked on an AS/400 that to date, hasn't crashed once since 1992.
>
> Reliability is not a function of doo-dads in the construction of the
>case, but of the care the vendor takes in building their stuff.

        I agree 100% on both counts:

        A) The AS/400 is a VERY robust platform, with about 30,000 in circulation
(as of last year). And with the premium IBM charged for this solid
platform, they can afford to support it well... If my customers had the
$$$, then I would recommend AS/400's by the truckload;

        B) Care in construction? Can you say PowerBook 5300? AppleVision 1705?!

> That is also why you see Mac Pluses circa 1986 still running like mad.
>Slow, but well-built and reliable. Although nothing can eliminate
>Murphy's law, you can make it happen few and far between.

        Bullshit!

        If the Mac Plus were so reliable, then the Kensington coolers wouldn't be
needed... And a teenage prodigy wouldn't be a millionaire!

        Now you stepped in it... The Mac Plus still lacked a fan. Perhaps you're
thinking of "Green Jade," the SE/30?!

        [See, I used to be a Mac evangelist for many years!]

> Anyone who talks about NT being exceptionally stable is not facing
>reality.

        Reality is in the eye of the beholder: NT4 is a LOT more stable than MacOS
8.5.1... But I grant that it still has a way to go. When I need stability,
scaleability and security, I recommend OpenVMS or sVMS (military grade
secureVMS). But the AS/400 is also a good choice.

>Compared to Unix and AS/400s, NT is a joke and a half. I have
>OS/2 running a voicemail server that hasn't crashed in over 3 years of
>24x7 usage, and this is without hotswappable or redundant anything.

        The fact that your call system hasn't failed is due not only to OS/2 but
also due to the robustness of the hardware it's running on...

>I have yet to see a 24x7 NT box approaching that level of reliability. I
>also have seen well - configured Macs be as reliable as any other OS.

        Here, we disagree. The MacOS, **as it configures itself during a default
install** puts too many gewgaws in the Control Panels and Extensions
Folders. What does Speech have to do with the efficient operation of a
server?! Does the AS/400 have speech recognition, or even speech playback?!

>COnversely, I have seen poorly configured AS/400s crashes monthly.
>Stability and reliability are tenuous things, and cannot be reduced to
>on item, like the OS. It takes care, and perseverance and planning to
>achieve real reliability, and this is the SYSAdmin's job much more than
>the hardware/software's.

        Here, I respectfully disagree: You have to have a robust hardware platform
to execute the OS .AND. you need a robust OS to not crash 2 or 3 times per
day. Yes, you can "Steve" an AS/400 to crash often; and you can equip a Mac
Plus with a Kensington cooler - And both will run.

        BUT: A System Administrator (or consultant to a business too small to have
a System Admin on staff) needs to balance cost, performance, and
reliability; and present these options... After all, the business owner
needs to make an informed decision...

> One thing to be wary of with Exchange is that if you use the native Mac
>client, instead of the Web Access client, the ONLY mail that your Mac
>clients will get is Exchange mail only, no IMAP or POP.

        Not true: Eudora works fine as long as you turn ON "". But you lose
anything but clear text authentication (at least with Eudora 3.x Mac & win
clients).

>Also, for a lot
>of it's functionality, Exchange requires IIS.

        NO! Only if you want browser-based eMail retrieval...

>It also requires an NT domain structure.

        Yes and no... Earlier versions do, but Exchange 5.5 doesn't.

        ... But I (implicitly) agree that the NT domain structure STINKS

>Now Microsoft, if prodded admits that the Domain
>controller should be standalone, as should the Exchange server, and the
>IIS server.

        It all depends on the size of the domain: For under 200 users, Exchange
can easily coexist with a Domain Controller... Your mileage may vary,
depending on RAM, CPU, and disk speed...

>So now it's 3 boxes. If you want reliability, you have to
>set up failovers, so now it's 6 boxes. Oh, we need a backup domain
>controller, so now it's 8 boxes, if you want high
>access/speed/availability.

        No, you're exponentially propagating your error...

>Not so economical, is it? On the other hand,
>2 Netware 5 servers could handle this, or a single AS/400 running Domino
>server.

        One AS/400? How do you go from 8 machines to 1 (physical) machine??

>NT is only cheap in the shrink-wrap in the box. Once you use it,
>it gets very expensive, very quickly. Also, compared to someone like
>IBM, Microsoft's tech support is so sad as to be humorous.

        I don't fully disagree; but then again most of the hardware vendors have
already traded off (NT) license purchase price for supporting NT itself...
Remember, DIGITAL has (had?) more MCSE's than M$ itself!

> Yes, a 'pro' level case with redundancy built in is very desirable, BUT
>with a little planning, you can get the same redundancy for almost every
>component in a Mac as you can in a high - end Intel box, the notable
>exception being the power supply, and I *dearly* wish either Apple or
>someone else would take care of that.

        I respectfully disagree, this time using the data you just provided. I
also disagree based on a "graceful shutdown" of a given server... And here
is where Apple fell down on two disparate -- but equally important -- points:

        1) There is NO USB-based shutdown software;

        2) HFS Extended (let alone HFS) is *not* a transactional based file
system... If a cache buffer is full .AND. the power goes off without a
graceful shutdown, the HFS & HFS+ file systems WILL fail... And this sets
the MacOS into a downward spiral, where the more corrupt the file system,
the more prone it will be to crashing...

        [Please compare this to BeOS' file system, or even NTFS (Native
Transactional File System). Need I say more?]

 (more below)

>"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
>>
>> Curtis nailed the software issue against using a Mac-based
enterprise
>> solution; and I still stand on my hardware concerns about the G3's being
>> unsuitable for 24/7 duty.
>>
>> I guess you could say that OS-X and ASIP represent the "Peter
Principle:"
>> Promotion (of the Mac platform) to the level of its incompetency.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Dan
>>
>> At 08:43 AM 3/23/99 -0500, Curtis wrote:
>> >On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Grant Ball wrote:
>> >
>> >> The paper has 200 users split 50/50 between PC's and macs. Novell and
PC's
>> >> are on the business side and editorial, classified and production use
macs.
>> >> Currently only about 80 of them have email and I was asked about
bringing
>> >> the rest on board. We have several AppleShare servers, one of which
>> handles
>> >> email for PC's and macs, as well as an FTP site. The server is an
8500/200
>> >> with 64 megs of RAM.
>> >>
>> >> The fellow I work with is a CNE and when he heard the request, instantly
>> >> went into a rant about how unstable macs and IP6 is for email and
that NT
>> >> and Exchange would be a better solution. I don't really care about
which to
>> >> use since using Exchange would be cool for me since I'm still a newbe to
>> the
>> >> NT world and this would give me a chance to use some of my new
knowledge.
>> >>
>> >> Now, the rub is money (isn't it always.) We already have NT and Exchange
>> and
>> >> we build PC hardware (all Intel stuff so it's HCL compliant) in
house. The
>> >> catch is, we only have 25 CAL's for Exchange and the paper doesn't
want to
>> >> spend any money if at all possible. My thinking is IP6 and email seem to
>> >> work well, how about just adding the users and Bob's your uncle. Am I
>> >> sailing into disaster thinking I can do this? Should I also consider
adding
>> >> more RAM to the server? Should I tell the paper to go the NT route
and suck
>> >> up whatever costs that that will incur? What are your thoughts?
>> >
>> >I know almost nothing about IP6 but I know that email needs high
>> >availability and the MacOS (pre OS X) probably isn't good enough. I know
>> >there are all kinds of people running Mac based mail servers and there are
>> >even free ones but as much as I like it I'm just not comfortable with
>> >pre-OS X as a server OS. If you had some UNIX experience or some money to
>> >spend I might suggest going that route. I'd say go with NT but not with
>> >Exchange. There are a number of quality mail servers for NT which are
>> >free/cheap. I like IMAP but POP is much more common and you may not need
>> >IMAP's advantages. Figure out how much the CALs would cost and see how
>> >they compare to the mail-only server software available. I can't recommend
>> >a particular one but someone on another list who seems to be pretty
>> >experienced likes VPOP3 <http://www.pscs.co.uk/>
>> >
>> >--
>> >Curtis Wilcox cwcx@ats.rochester.edu
>> >Eastman School of Music x41160

        Yours truly,
        Daniel L. Schwartz,
        Electrical Engineer.

        Dan's Macintosh Consulting
        239 Great Road
        Maple Shade, NJ 08052

        609-642-7666

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

        <mailto:expresso@snip.net, Dan@Hemnet.com>
         
        ALTERNATE: <mailto:expresso@workmail.com>

                Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
                                        <http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>

        **Your Corel Solution Partner**

                **Your UltraBac Solution Source**

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Mar 23 1999 - 14:24:59 PST