Hi Rod, i think you should probably ask the mailing list this
question. i've forwarded it, for your convenience.
> Dear Lee,
> Please assist me in a major decision facing the future of a film bureau.
>
> We are considering upgrading our server to Mac OSX/ Windows NT/ Novell
> Netware.
> Networking 6 Macs and 2 PCs with 100BaseT.
> Using Color Central.
>
> Q1. Which platform is faster?
> Q2. Why?
> Q3. Which platform provides more stability?
> Q4. Why?
> Q5. Which is the most compatable?
>
> Thanking you in advance.
>
> Rod Waller
> Australia
umm...I would make that a little more cautionary these days. With the
rise in popularity of email with HTML, applets, and active X controls,
trojan horse email is not impossible by a long shot, although it will
probably be more of a windows thing. That's why I tell my users not to
use html email. Well, actually I tell them it's the spawn of Satan :)
"Robert James, Jr." wrote:
>
> > Just so you know, this virus is a hoax. Please check this page:
> >
> > http://www.kumite.com/myths/home.htm
> >
> > Chris
>
> Thanks for posting this to the list, Chris. That URL has been a
> staple of my bookmarks for several years now. Among other things,
> you will learn there that there is NO SUCH THING as an email that
> infects your computer as soon as you open it. You are only infected
> when you open *email attachments* that contain viruses.
>
> Bob
>
> --------<<<<<<<<@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@>>>>>>>>--------
> Robert James, Jr., Coordinator
> Fine Arts Resource Center
> Dept. of the Performing & Fine Arts
> <http://www.uncfsu.edu/w4/dpt/fah/index.htm>
> Fayetteville State University <http://www.uncfsu.edu>
> Fayetteville, NC
> Email: rjames@chi1.uncfsu.edu
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
> you will learn there that there is NO SUCH THING as an email that
> infects your computer as soon as you open it. You are only infected
> when you open *email attachments* that contain viruses.
I'm not going to disagree with you because for years I've said the same
thing as you!
Saturday night my wife was using the PC we've got, to check her email. She
uses Outlook Express 5 since that's what she uses at her office. She
received a message from a friend. The minute she clicked on the message,
just clicked on it, not opened it, the computer went beserk. It started
beeping and opeing windows with text in them etc. It took me 15 minutes to
get the machine back to a normal useable state.
Here's what happened. Outlook Express 5 (possibly other versions) defaults
to a screen layout like this :
Folder List | Message List
--------------+---------------------------------------
Contacts List | Message Preview
When a message is selected in the list, it is instantly previewed down
below. So you don't even need to double click the message to open it.
Now since MS wants Outlook to support HTML,they used the same engine as IE,
and that includes JScript. SO if a message comes in that contains embedded
JScript, it is executed immediately! That's what happened to my wife. The
message contained embedded JScript to make the computer beep and start
opening windows.
I'm trying to track down a reference that tells me what JScript is capeable
of. If I had to guess, I'd bet that it could delete files at the very
least.
--
-------------------------------+--------------------------------
Michael H. Martel | Vermont State Colleges
mailto:martelm@quark.vsc.edu | Technical Support Specialist
http://probe.vsc.edu/~michael | PH:802-241-2535 FX:802-241-3363
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:35:59 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First off, I would think very carefully about iMation Color Central: I'm
unimpressed with its features for the US$5,000 price.
Next, I would leave out NetWare, because Mac file service is an
afterthought. I would also leave out OpenVMS because of the lack of Mac
file support.
This leaves 3 options: NT, AppleShare Server IP; and the unix variants
such as MacOS X Server (BSD) and Linux.
BACKUP AND ARCHIVING:
---------------------
I wouldn't bother with the unix variants because of the lack of decent
backup software - "tar" doesn't bother to store file hierarchy, i.e. all
files are stored flat. This is a *major* flaw with using OS X as a
departmental server: Unlike NT, which has always had basic backup software
included plus a full spectrum of ISV's (Independent Software Vendors)
selling much better backup software.=20
HARDWARE:
---------
That leaves us down to NT vs ASIP... These are really your only realistic
choices. I just installed a new G4 this past Friday, and I was singularly
unimpressed with if I were installing it as a server compared to (for
example) the Compaq ProLiant. The lack of PCI option card slots, plus the
lack of PCI option card choices for servers definitely weighs towards
NT/x86 or NT/K7.
Two very important components that are missing from PowerPC Macs are
robust multiprocessor support and ECC memory (Error Correcting Code)
memory. Using multiple CPU's allows for less expensive overall
configurations. For example, just yesterday I purchased for $550 a new
DIGITAL Server 5200 w/dual Intel Pentium II 266, 64MB RAM, CD, 10/100
ethernet & Dual Adaptec 7880 U/W SCSI channels. Just add hard drives & NT,
and you have a server.
ECC RAM allows for single bit errors to be detected AND corrected, and two
bit errors to be detected with the memory controller issuing an exception.
Without ECC, you still have parity memory available, which allows for
single bit errors to be detected. The next step down is plain memory, which
is only what all PowerPC Macs use and support. Without any parity support
in the memory controller, even a single bit soft error will bring down the
machine.
NETWORK SUBSYSTEM:
------------------
Here, it's a virtual tie for this important subsystem: Good PC
motherboards and the PPC Macs have 10/100 ethernet built in; plus Gigabit
ethernet is a viable alternative for both platforms. Here is where switched
100 megabit ethernet comes in handy - Extending the life of 100 megabit
ethernet hardware.
DISK SUBSYSTEM:
---------------
This is the singularly most important component of a server, and what
separates a server from a rebadged workstation. For example, there are *no*
RAID controllers for Macs - RAID is implemented on Mac on the driver
(software) level. With NT, you have software RAID formatting software
included in Disk Administrator, plus you have a plethora of hardware RAID
controllers. Ironically, some of the largest selling RAID controllers are
made by Adapcrap, err, Adaptec; but at MacWorld the rep told me there are
no plans for porting the AAA-13x series to the Mac.
My personal favorite RAID controller: The three channel Mylex DAC-960 -
It's reliable, and the i960 RISC processor on it handles the parity
calculations without bogging down the host CPU. You can even boot from it,
although I don't recommend doing this. It's easy to set up a nonstop 1/8th
terabyte array with nine 18 gig hard drives - Seven drives are for storage,
the eighth is for parity, and the ninth is for a hot spare. That's right:
If a drive goes down the RAID controller just keeps motoring along, and
then the array is rebuilt using the hot standby drive with the priority you
choose - All without skipping a beat, let alone (gasp!) rebooting.
RECOMMENDATION FOR DEPARTMENTAL SERVER:
---------------------------------------
Dual PII CPU with 512 MB of ECC RAM, Mylex DAC960 RAID controller with 4
MB of RAM, nine 18 MB hard drives for 1/8 terabyte protected storage, and a
DLT for backups; plus NT4/Server with Service Pack 5, UltraBac backup
software, and either MacServer IP or ExtremeZ-IP for Apple Filing Protocol
over IP (AFP/IP) support for improved sustained file transfer speed.
Cheers!
Dan
At 01:20 AM 9/21/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Rod, i think you should probably ask the mailing list this
>question. i've forwarded it, for your convenience.
>
>--Darryl
>
>> From graphics@point.com.au Mon Sep 20 23:07:30 1999
>> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:08:37 +1000
>> From: point graphics <graphics@point.com.au>
>> Organization: point graphics
>> To: lee@darryl.com
>> Subject: www.darryl.com/winmac/index.shtml
>
>> Dear Lee,
>> Please assist me in a major decision facing the future of a film bureau.
>>=20
>> We are considering upgrading our server to Mac OSX/ Windows NT/ Novell
>> Netware.
>> Networking 6 Macs and 2 PCs with 100BaseT.
>> Using Color Central.
>>=20
>> Q1. Which platform is faster?
>> Q2. Why?
>> Q3. Which platform provides more stability?
>> Q4. Why?
>> Q5. Which is the most compatable?
>>=20
>> Thanking you in advance.
>>=20
>> Rod Waller
>> Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
<mailto:expresso@snip.net>=20
Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
This message is =A9Copyright 1999 by Daniel L. Schwartz, and
may not be reproduced except in its entirety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Virus alert
From: John Droggitis <johnd@cybernex.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:50:25 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Michael H. Martel" wrote:
> Now since MS wants Outlook to support HTML,they used the same engine as IE,
> and that includes JScript. SO if a message comes in that contains embedded
> JScript, it is executed immediately! That's what happened to my wife. The
> message contained embedded JScript to make the computer beep and start
> opening windows.
>
> I'm trying to track down a reference that tells me what JScript is capeable
> of. If I had to guess, I'd bet that it could delete files at the very
> least.
>
If JScript has similar security as javascript (what m$ ripped, um, modelled
jscript after), then it doesn't have any access to the filesystem. But there
are probably exploits to get around that. Now, activeX controls, which can
also be embedded in email, are a different story. These can cause a lot more
damage.
--John
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
From: John Droggitis <johnd@cybernex.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 10:05:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
> <very detailed server comparison>
Dan,
This was a very informative comparison, I just want to address one point you made:
> BACKUP AND ARCHIVING:
> ---------------------
>
> I wouldn't bother with the unix variants because of the lack of decent
> backup software - "tar" doesn't bother to store file hierarchy, i.e. all
> files are stored flat. This is a *major* flaw with using OS X as a
> departmental server: Unlike NT, which has always had basic backup software
> included plus a full spectrum of ISV's (Independent Software Vendors)
> selling much better backup software.
What you said about tar is not true. Tar is a very flexible and powerful command
that's been used to back up data in unix networks for far longer than NT and macos
have been in existence, and it _does_ store file hieararchy just fine. Now let me
just say that I've never used OS X server, and it may have a deficient implementation
of tar or perhaps the tar wrapper that does the backup doesn't save hierarchy
information. But I've used tar (and seen it used) for data backup and recovery, and
it's very sufficient. The only drawback is the dated command-line interface that can
put off a lot of mac and windows users and even admins.
If this is your only reservation about using a unix system as a server, then maybe
you need to reconsider. Many of the hardware advantages that you mentioned also
apply to free unixes (linux, free/netBSD) and most certainly to commercial unixes
(solaris, AIX etc).
--John
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
From: Michael Eilon <mgeilon@geocities.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:57:58 +0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 8:35 AM -0400 21/9/99, Daniel L. Schwartz wrote:
>
>BACKUP AND ARCHIVING:
>---------------------
>
> I wouldn't bother with the unix variants because of the lack of decent
>backup software - "tar" doesn't bother to store file hierarchy, i.e. all
>files are stored flat.
Erm... are you sure about this? We use "tar" to backup our departmental
Linux server on a daily basis, and it certainly stores the directory
structures! Works pretty good too, seeing as it's essentially free
software.
>This is a *major* flaw with using OS X as a
>departmental server: Unlike NT, which has always had basic backup software
>included plus a full spectrum of ISV's (Independent Software Vendors)
>selling much better backup software.
I have to disagree. I don't think it's particularly fair to dismiss Unix
servers because you (incorrectly) think "tar" doesn't back up a directory
structure.
=46rankly, I would choose Unix servers over NT servers for a number of
reasons, not least of which are:
1) It scales well... NT tends to die when the number of users/workstations
gets large (not a consideration for this Film Bureau thread, I realise).
2) It's free. The NT server OS usually costs $$$.
3) Whatever hardware NT can run on, usually Linux can as well (or is not
far behind).
4) Once it's running, a Unix server is less of a maintenance hassle than an
NT server (I should know... we have both in our department).
Admittedly, Unix servers are more hassle to set up and get going, and in
some cases that's a serious consideration, but dismissing Unix servers out
of hand because of a supposed flaw in tar seems excessive.
Admittedly I'm no Unix guru, and am familiar only with Linux (haven't used
MacOS X yet), but all in all I find Unix servers to be more powerful, more
robust and cheaper than Windows servers.
Cheers,
Michael Eilon
Assistant computer manager
Dept. of Physics
University of Western Australia
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:33:01 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 10:57 PM +0800 9/21/99, Michael Eilon wrote:
>I have to disagree. I don't think it's particularly fair to dismiss Unix
>servers because you (incorrectly) think "tar" doesn't back up a directory
>structure.
That's not the only reason Dan dismissed them, I believe.
>Frankly, I would choose Unix servers over NT servers for a number of
>reasons, not least of which are:
>
>1) It scales well... NT tends to die when the number of users/workstations
>gets large (not a consideration for this Film Bureau thread, I realise).
Depends on what software you are running on the server -
either/both NT or Unix. Properly administered NT and Unix boxes can
handle similar loads for similar durations for the same period of
time.
>2) It's free. The NT server OS usually costs $$$.
I personally don't consider this a valid argument for
choosing an OS for ANY reason! (don't get me wrong, I'm all for
open-source but it's NOT (IMHO) a reason for choosing one product
over another when you don't have (or want) the resources to actually
USE the source!
>4) Once it's running, a Unix server is less of a maintenance hassle than an
>NT server (I should know... we have both in our department).
>
>Admittedly, Unix servers are more hassle to set up and get going, and in
>some cases that's a serious consideration,
Interesting that you think that once setup, Unix is easier to
admin. I find that it's just as hard to admin as it is to setup -
ASSUMING that the person doing the admin is NOT a full time Unix
admin! The problem with command lines and "config files" is that
unless you live them, you forget...
Leonard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got a SmartFriend in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol Internet: leonardr@lazerware.com
America Online: MACgician
Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/>
FTP Site: <ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/>
PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:27:09 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 10:05 AM +0000 9/21/99, John Droggitis wrote:
>"Daniel L. Schwartz" wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't bother with the unix variants because of the
>lack of decent
> > backup software - "tar" doesn't bother to store file hierarchy, i.e. all
> > files are stored flat.
>
>What you said about tar is not true.
What Dan said is 100% technically accurate, though not
practically accurate - let me clarify.
Tar, like ZIP, stores all files in a flat file structure. It
relies on the fact that it stores (relative) PATHNAMES to maintain
any true hierarchy that existed on the source device. Because of
this limitation, it doesn't provide for archiving of directory
attribute information (permissions, etc.) as a TRUE hierarchical
archiver/backup program (StuffIt, Retrospect, etc.) does.
>Tar is a very flexible and powerful command
Tar is an outdated archiving format. It doesn't address many
of the issues/features of modern OS's including such things as
directory attributes, non-ASCII files names, platform-centric
information, etc.
Leonard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got a SmartFriend in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol Internet: leonardr@lazerware.com
America Online: MACgician
Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/>
FTP Site: <ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/>
PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
From: Dan Thurgood <dan@ergo-id.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 99 17:30:01 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Interesting that everyone seems to have dismissed ASIP out of hand. I am
running an ASIP 6.2 Server on a small mixed network (6 Power Macs,5
Windoze) in a graphic design environment, and we have NO problems.
Admittedly there were teething problems, but these turned out to be
related to SCSi termination problems rather than any Software problems. I
do not consider myself to be a 'poweruser' when it comes to servers and
IP and SMB and stuff, but I managed to install, set up and trouble shoot
the whole shebang myself in one day. As far as I know, and like I said,
I'm not an expert, NT only offers Appletalk speeds for Mac file sharing,
and sounds about as complex as you can get. ASIP is simple quick and
easy, and if Apple are to be believed actually faster for Windows sharing
than NT.
Why complicate things for the sake of two windows boxes? Rod Waller is
working in a similar environment to mine, where, I'm guessing here,, his
major slab of work in and out is Mac based. Why go to NT or Unix when
ASIP will be familiar in form and function, and do the job just fine?
Cheers, Dan (hands over my head, waiting for the barrage...) Thurgood.
Subject: Using NT for a MacFile server [WAS :Re: Film Bureau and
Platforms]
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:08:34 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Dan,
No "barrage" here... In fact, if you reference my original note I
dismissed OS X server before ASIP 6.2. The main reason for dismissing
ASIP 6.2 & MacOS 8.6 is because of the flimsy hardware, MacOS 8.6
stability, and lack of hardware RAID.
Also, I expectedly stated in my recommendations near the bottom that
MacServer IP or InterGraph's ExtremeZ-IP to implement AFP/IP:
------
>>>>
<excerpt>
RECOMMENDATION FOR DEPARTMENTAL SERVER:
---------------------------------------
Dual PII CPU with 512 MB of ECC RAM, Mylex DAC960 RAID controller with 4
MB of RAM, nine 18 MB hard drives for 1/8 terabyte protected storage, and
a DLT for backups; plus NT4/Server with Service Pack 5, UltraBac backup
software, and either MacServer IP or ExtremeZ-IP for Apple Filing
Protocol over IP (AFP/IP) support for improved sustained file transfer
speed.
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
------
Furthermore, Windows 2000/Server has, built in, AFP/IP with ASIP 5.1
emulation, so third party AFP/IP products are no longer needed.
The main thrust of my recommendation was *not* for the PC connectivity,
although hitching up to an NT Server is quite easy - Especially if
NetBEUI is loaded on the PC's and Server. BTW, NetBEUI is about the
fastest protocol available, and is quite suitable for small LAN's... But
it is non-routeable and is limited to 255 nodes.
Cheers!
Dan=20
At 05:30 PM 9/21/99 +0000, Dan wrote:
>Interesting that everyone seems to have dismissed ASIP out of hand. I am
=20
>running an ASIP 6.2 Server on a small mixed network (6 Power Macs,5=20
>Windoze) in a graphic design environment, and we have NO problems.=20
>Admittedly there were teething problems, but these turned out to be=20
>related to SCSi termination problems rather than any Software problems.
I=20
>do not consider myself to be a 'poweruser' when it comes to servers and=20
>IP and SMB and stuff, but I managed to install, set up and trouble shoot=20
>the whole shebang myself in one day. As far as I know, and like I said,=20
>I'm not an expert, NT only offers Appletalk speeds for Mac file sharing,=20
>and sounds about as complex as you can get. ASIP is simple quick and=20
>easy, and if Apple are to be believed actually faster for Windows
sharing=20
>than NT.
>
>Why complicate things for the sake of two windows boxes? Rod Waller is=20
>working in a similar environment to mine, where, I'm guessing here,, his=20
>major slab of work in and out is Mac based. Why go to NT or Unix when=20
>ASIP will be familiar in form and function, and do the job just fine?
>
>Cheers, Dan (hands over my head, waiting for the barrage...) Thurgood.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
<<mailto:expresso@snip.net>=20
Webmaster for <<http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<<http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
This message is =A9Copyright 1999 by Daniel L. Schwartz, and
may not be reproduced except in its entirety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Using NT for a MacFile server [WAS :Re: Film Bureau
and Platforms]
From: mark.maytum@pompy.com
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:38:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Rod,
Well, I'm running two Compaq 1600's w/2SL RAID controllers and two Mac
9650's. Both the Macs are connected to a RAID tower with a 4 host SCSI
bridge in it (each have their own volume partitions of course). So the
part about Macs not supporting hardware raid doesn't hold up. *Everything*
supports hardware raid. Your host computer doesn't have to carry the RAID
controller. And as far as software RAID goes, an NT mirrored partition is
one step above useless and NT striped partitions are...well...fine. To be
fair, SoftRaid and HDT on the mac side are about equal to their NT software
RAID counterparts. If you're going to mirror your boot partition, chances
are, it's not going to be a *painless* recovery.
If you don't count my attempt to hack the 9650's with Newer G3 cards
recently (which was an experience), all four of our servers have similar
uptimes. We have both AtEase for Workgroups users and NT roaming users to
think about here. I really wouldn't want to have to do without *either*
server platform.
However, in your case, assuming that you don't want to do any domain level
type authentication, I'd stick with ASIP. The lack of parity RAM and more
PCI slots than you'll likely ever fill probably won't be a showstopper. A
properly configured ASIP server is very stable. It's also....easy to
configure.
Considering that you need to add some extra (and not cheap) software to an
NT server to get acceptable SFM performance out of it, I don't think price
is really going to be a consideration.
As always, your mileage may vary.
HTH,
Mark Maytum
Pompanoosuc Mills Corporation
P.S. *Not* covering my head. Flame at will everybody.
"Daniel L. Schwartz"
<expresso@snip.net> To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list"
Sent by: <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
<winmac@xerxes.frit.u cc:
texas.edu> Subject: [WinMac] Using NT for a MacFile
server [WAS :Re: Film Bureau and Platforms]
09/21/99 01:08 PM
Please respond to
"The Windows-MacOS
cooperation list"
Dear Dan,
No "barrage" here... In fact, if you reference my original note
I
dismissed OS X server before ASIP 6.2. The main reason for dismissing
ASIP 6.2 & MacOS 8.6 is because of the flimsy hardware, MacOS 8.6
stability, and lack of hardware RAID.
Also, I expectedly stated in my recommendations near the bottom
that
MacServer IP or InterGraph's ExtremeZ-IP to implement AFP/IP:
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Using NT for a MacFile server [WAS :Re: Film Bureau
and Platforms]
From: mark.maytum@pompy.com
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:50:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark Maytum said someting stupid like:
>Considering that you need to add some extra (and not cheap) software to an
>NT server to get acceptable SFM performance out of it, I don't think price
>is really going to be a consideration.
What I *meant* to say was:
Considering that you need to add some extra (and not cheap) software to an
NT server to get acceptable *AFP* performance out of it, I don't think
price
is really going to be a consideration.
:-)
Cheers!
Mark Maytum
Pompanoosuc Mills Corporation
Subject: Re: Using NT for a MacFile server [WAS :Re: Film Bureau and
Platforms]
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:18:02 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Mark,
No flames here... Just vigorous opinions!
Yes, there are SCSI-to-SCSI RAID controllers, but that is a hack of the
first order: You lose the bandwidth that can only be achieved with a
connection to a PCI bus - Especially the newer 64 bit &/or 66 mHz PCI buses.
Software (driver level) RAID is OK, but it's a third-party add-on for the
Mac while it's included in NT. Oh, and by the way the NTFS drivers between
NT/S & NT/W are the same, so if you want a RAID Level 5 on an
NT/Workstation, just create & format the array on an NT server and then
move it across to the NT workstation.
-----
SIDEBAR:
I've had poor experience with Newer Technology, specifically on both their
G3 cards as well as honoring their lifetime warranty on RAM. I much prefer
Sonnet <http://www.sonnettech.com> because their 68040 AND G3 accelerators
have proven themselves in a number of installations I support... Plus, they
are less expensive!
-----
As for the third party AFP (and correctly, SFM) software, it's only $295
for a 5 user license. Plus, you can add SFM using either ExtremeZ-IP or
MacServer IP to a machine running NT/Workstation as well as NT/Server. This
cuts down the licensing cost quite a bit, since NT/W is $179 (while MacOS
8.x is $99).
Cheers!
Dan
At 02:38 PM 9/21/99 -0400, Mark Maytum wrote:
>
>Rod,
>
>Well, I'm running two Compaq 1600's w/2SL RAID controllers and two Mac
>9650's. Both the Macs are connected to a RAID tower with a 4 host SCSI
>bridge in it (each have their own volume partitions of course). So the
>part about Macs not supporting hardware raid doesn't hold up. *Everything*
>supports hardware raid. Your host computer doesn't have to carry the RAID
>controller. And as far as software RAID goes, an NT mirrored partition is
>one step above useless and NT striped partitions are...well...fine. To be
>fair, SoftRaid and HDT on the mac side are about equal to their NT software
>RAID counterparts. If you're going to mirror your boot partition, chances
>are, it's not going to be a *painless* recovery.
>
>If you don't count my attempt to hack the 9650's with Newer G3 cards
>recently (which was an experience), all four of our servers have similar
>uptimes. We have both AtEase for Workgroups users and NT roaming users to
>think about here. I really wouldn't want to have to do without *either*
>server platform.
>
>However, in your case, assuming that you don't want to do any domain level
>type authentication, I'd stick with ASIP. The lack of parity RAM and more
>PCI slots than you'll likely ever fill probably won't be a showstopper. A
>properly configured ASIP server is very stable. It's also....easy to
>configure.
>
>Considering that you need to add some extra (and not cheap) software to an
>NT server to get acceptable SFM performance out of it, I don't think price
>is really going to be a consideration.
>
>As always, your mileage may vary.
>
>HTH,
>Mark Maytum
>Pompanoosuc Mills Corporation
>
>P.S. *Not* covering my head. Flame at will everybody.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
<mailto:expresso@snip.net>=20
Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
This message is =A9Copyright 1999 by Daniel L. Schwartz, and
may not be reproduced except in its entirety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NTFS for Win 98
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:24:56 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Well, Bryce and Mark have come up with a great utility: NTFS98. It
provides read & write support to NTFS volumes in 95 & 98. Check it out at:
<http://www.sysinternals.com/ntfs98.htm>.
Cheers!
Dan
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms
From: John Droggitis <johnd@cybernex.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:29:50 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> What Dan said is 100% technically accurate, though not
> practically accurate - let me clarify.
>
> Tar, like ZIP, stores all files in a flat file structure. It
> relies on the fact that it stores (relative) PATHNAMES to maintain
> any true hierarchy that existed on the source device. Because of
> this limitation, it doesn't provide for archiving of directory
> attribute information (permissions, etc.) as a TRUE hierarchical
> archiver/backup program (StuffIt, Retrospect, etc.) does.
Nonsense. Tar does produce a single archive that contains file entries Each
entry contains a header that includes its pathname, statistics (including
ownership, permissions, creation and modification dates) and checksum for error
checking. Directory entries are similar to file entries, so those too include
ownership and permission info etc. This information is adequate for tar to
create an exact replica of the archived sources. Tar is not limited to relative
pathnames either, its archives can contain absolute or relative paths.
> >Tar is a very flexible and powerful command
>
> Tar is an outdated archiving format.
Tar is as outdated as winNT is modern. Here's a good tar reference:
http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/index.html
--John
Subject: Tar & archive formats (was Re: [WinMac] Film Bureau and Platforms)
From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:31:23 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 3:29 PM +0000 9/21/99, John Droggitis wrote:
>Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>
> > Tar, like ZIP, stores all files in a flat file structure. It
> > relies on the fact that it stores (relative) PATHNAMES to maintain
> > any true hierarchy that existed on the source device.
>
>Tar does produce a single archive that contains file entries Each
>entry contains a header that includes its pathname, statistics (including
>ownership, permissions, creation and modification dates) and=20
>checksum for error checking.
Exactly what I said above. It's a FLAT FILE structure based=20
on pathnames rather than having actual "links" between a parent=20
directory and it's children. And yes, each of those entries has a=20
header with some basic information - but information that is=20
incomplete for Unix, let alone other platforms (Wintel, MacOS, etc.).
Also, as I noted in my message, those pathnames are SHORT=20
(100 characters), ASCII-based, which makes storing/restoring=20
non-English filenames pretty much impossible. To use your=20
reference, see=20
<http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC112> and=20
<http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC109>).
> Directory entries are similar to file entries, so those too include
>ownership and permission info etc.
See above comments about limited set of information...
>Tar is not limited to relative
>pathnames either, its archives can contain absolute or relative paths.
GNU tar may support absolute pathnames, but it's not part of=20
the POSIX spec for tar.
Let's also not forget about other well known limitations of=20
Tar such as EXTREMELY poor recovery of corrupted archives, lack of a=20
segmenting architecture, Unix-centricity, and of course no support=20
for integrated compression (NOTE: .tgz is NOT integrated compression=20
since it requires decompression of the entire archive before being=20
able to extract a single item!)
> > Tar is an outdated archiving format.
>
>Tar is as outdated as winNT is modern.
Almost makes me want to comment about NT ;).
As the original author of StuffIt Expander, and most of the=20
components of the StuffIt Engine (incl. the Tar support) I stand by=20
my categorization of Tar and it's (lack of) usefulness as a backup=20
and archiving solution.
Leonard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got a SmartFriend=81 in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol Internet: leonardr@lazerware.com
America Online: MACgician
Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/>
=46TP Site: <ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/>
PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Using NT for a MacFile server [WAS :Re: Film
Bureau and Platforms]
From: mark.maytum@pompy.com
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:49:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Dan,
OK, I'll bite. Let's get geeky! :-)
My raid controller is LVD-LVD straight through - I purchased this
particular controller mainly for cable length, not speed. You of course
have to stick LVD-PCI controllers in your macs (adding some expense, but
definitely *not* a hack). We get very speedy performance out of our RAID
tower. Certainly enough to pretty much fill up the 100mb pipes on the two
servers simultaneously. When I say *pretty much* I mean around 8-9mb/sec.
I've never benched the RAID disk I/O but, well...it's gotta be at least
20mb/sec. And before you yell "Cache!", both these servers run 96mb and
they have FMP server and Retrospect running too. ASIP doesn't get too much
memory to play with. I hammer mac servers with LanTest and/or Pounder and
if they fill the pipes I don't worry about it too much more.
OK granted, if I had the ability to run multi-port ethernet or gig cards in
the Mac servers, I might pay more attention to disk I/O. But we're not
nearly there yet.
I'm not sure what you mean about NT server and workstation RAID's being
transportable - I mean, yeah that's true. AFAIK, you can take a SoftRaid
(included with ASIP BTW) RAID and move it to any mac you want, server or
workstation too. Matter of fact, my two 9650's are nothing more than power
supplies with memory, an Asante 100mb card, an Adaptec card and a fan.
They boot and operate *entirely* off the RAID (again, from separate
partitions of course). I can run my ASIP servers from *any* PCI mac with
two empty slots.
Just a side note about newer: we have about 40 of their 6100 G3 cards.
Never a problem. Got my last three of them last week. These three were
all DOA. Little cap pak was busted off the board on all of them! My
MicroWarehouse salesdude tells me they're having quite the little cash
crunch. He also said they've been seeing lots of returns of their boards
lately. Hmm. I finally fixed my 9650 server problems with much tweaking,
removing of extensions, etc.
"Daniel L. Schwartz"
<expresso@snip.net> To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list"
Sent by: <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
<winmac@xerxes.frit.u cc:
texas.edu> Subject: [WinMac] Re: Using NT for a MacFile
server [WAS :Re: Film Bureau and Platforms]
09/21/99 03:18 PM
Please respond to
"The Windows-MacOS
cooperation list"
Dear Mark,
No flames here... Just vigorous opinions!
Yes, there are SCSI-to-SCSI RAID controllers, but that is a hack
of the
first order: You lose the bandwidth that can only be achieved with a
connection to a PCI bus - Especially the newer 64 bit &/or 66 mHz PCI
buses.
Software (driver level) RAID is OK, but it's a third-party
add-on for the
Mac while it's included in NT. Oh, and by the way the NTFS drivers between
NT/S & NT/W are the same, so if you want a RAID Level 5 on an
NT/Workstation, just create & format the array on an NT server and then
move it across to the NT workstation.
-----
SIDEBAR:
I've had poor experience with Newer Technology, specifically on
both their
G3 cards as well as honoring their lifetime warranty on RAM. I much prefer
Sonnet <http://www.sonnettech.com> because their 68040 AND G3 accelerators
have proven themselves in a number of installations I support... Plus, they
are less expensive!
-----
As for the third party AFP (and correctly, SFM) software, it's
only $295
for a 5 user license. Plus, you can add SFM using either ExtremeZ-IP or
MacServer IP to a machine running NT/Workstation as well as NT/Server. This
cuts down the licensing cost quite a bit, since NT/W is $179 (while MacOS
8.x is $99).
Cheers!
Dan
At 02:38 PM 9/21/99 -0400, Mark Maytum wrote:
>
>Rod,
>
>Well, I'm running two Compaq 1600's w/2SL RAID controllers and two Mac
>9650's. Both the Macs are connected to a RAID tower with a 4 host SCSI
>bridge in it (each have their own volume partitions of course). So the
>part about Macs not supporting hardware raid doesn't hold up. *Everything*
>supports hardware raid. Your host computer doesn't have to carry the RAID
>controller. And as far as software RAID goes, an NT mirrored partition is
>one step above useless and NT striped partitions are...well...fine. To be
>fair, SoftRaid and HDT on the mac side are about equal to their NT
software
>RAID counterparts. If you're going to mirror your boot partition, chances
>are, it's not going to be a *painless* recovery.
>
>If you don't count my attempt to hack the 9650's with Newer G3 cards
>recently (which was an experience), all four of our servers have similar
>uptimes. We have both AtEase for Workgroups users and NT roaming users to
>think about here. I really wouldn't want to have to do without *either*
>server platform.
>
>However, in your case, assuming that you don't want to do any domain level
>type authentication, I'd stick with ASIP. The lack of parity RAM and more
>PCI slots than you'll likely ever fill probably won't be a showstopper. A
>properly configured ASIP server is very stable. It's also....easy to
>configure.
>
>Considering that you need to add some extra (and not cheap) software to an
>NT server to get acceptable SFM performance out of it, I don't think price
>is really going to be a consideration.
>
>As always, your mileage may vary.
>
>HTH,
>Mark Maytum
>Pompanoosuc Mills Corporation
>
>P.S. *Not* covering my head. Flame at will everybody.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
<mailto:expresso@snip.net>
Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<
http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
This message is ©Copyright 1999 by Daniel L. Schwartz, and
may not be reproduced except in its entirety.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
End of WinMac Digest
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *