Re: [WinMac] Re: OS-X Server: Not ready for prime time yet

John C. Welch(jwelch[at]aer.com)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:09:48 -0400

Since I only need WTS for my Unix users, Citrix is a requirement. I'll
*think* about W2k terminal server ONLY after six months and the first
STABLE service pack. Sorry Microsoft, but you've burned me once too
often for trust to be anything but a joke.

BTW...NO IDE drives, very stock config, (per my requirements), All
hardware is Compaq and MS approved, as a matter of fact, each half of
the boot mirror has it's own SCSI controller, and the RAID 5 is on it's
own controller. But the fact is, NT's task scheduler allows tasks to
reset their own priorities, leading to things like Word eating all the
CPU. (Compaq 1600R, 450 PII)

john

I have seen the article, and I stand by my comments.

"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
>
> Sigh...
>
> Why not actually take a look at the c't article? Here's the URL again:
> <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>.
>
> Also, I find it hard to believe that TSE would peg out at 99.9% CPU usage,
> unless there's a configuration problem or IDE drives being used... Oops! It
> also has Citrix MetaFrame loaded... Ugh. Try W2k with built-in Terminal
> Server instead.
>
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
> At 10:21 PM 6/28/99 -0400, John Welch wrote:
> >In that case, neither is NT, as one person running Word on an NT
> >Terminal Server /Citrix Metaframe box can eat 99.9% of the CPU, and it's
> >only about a 3 page document. Oh, the server in question has ~580MB of
> >RAM, one 8GB mirror for a system disk, and a 26GB RAID 5 array for user
> >home directories. All that story proves is that it is easily possible to
> >crash OSX server. The same is true of NT, Solaris, and if you know what
> >you are doing, an AS/400. Big poofing deal. What I want to see is a test
> >between single processor boxes running, Linux, NT, OSX Server and
> >Solaris, BUT, instead of the usual 50-60 clients, which plays into NT's
> >sweet spot, I want to see results with loads from 100 to 500 clients on
> >one box. Somehow, I see IIS' vaunted performance curve doing a
> >precipitous drop, while the *nixen stay relatively flat.
> >
> >John
> >
> >"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
> >>
> >> Good afternoon!
> >>
> >> While researching NT vs linux "shootouts" by the likes of MindCraft,
> Ziff-Davis, and c't (German magazine), I stumbled across, as a footnote to
> the c't article, the following...
> >>
> >> From <http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/>:
> >>
> >> MacOS X (re)served
> >>
> >> With MacOS X, Apple is targeting the server market. The Unix-based
> operating system with integrated Apache is especially intended for
> performance web server use. We were curious and put our test setup against
> a server of this kind. However, the results can only convey a first
> impression since we optimized neither MacOS X nor the integrated Apache for
> this task. The entire system ran with its default settings.
> >> In addition, although the G3 Mac with its PowerPC 750e (400 MHz) we used
> does compare to a Pentium II Xeon (450 MHz), its memory of 128 MBytes RAM
> is rather on the small side. This alone is enough reason to run this server
> 'out of competition' here.
>
> [cut]
>
> >>
> >> And, reference [5], which is in the middle of the page:
> >>
> >> [5] CGI-MacPanic: <http://www.heise.de/ct/99/13/186/CGI-MacPanic>, see
> also CGI Causes MacOS X Server To Panic
> <http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/13/186/>
> >>
> >> It's worth noting that unlike MindCraft, the folks at c't can hardly be
> called Microsoft sycophants.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >> Dan
>
> * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Tue Jun 29 1999 - 06:13:03 PDT