[WinMac] Re: Film Bureau and Platforms

Daniel L. Schwartz(expresso[at]snip.net)
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:12:14 -0400

        I'll thread my responses inline as well...

At 03:18 PM 9/22/99 -0400, Aaron wrote:
>Daniel,
>
>I have responded inline and clipped extraneous text.
>
>----------
>>From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
>>To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list" <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Film Bureau and Platforms
>>Date: Wed, Sep 22, 1999, 10:55 AM
>>
>>
>> Aaron,
>>
>> I'll thread my responses inline. But, keep in mind that this is for a
>> (prepress) service bureau, with sustained file transfer speed and large
>> file management & storage the ultimate considerations...
>>
>> At 10:17 AM 9/22/99 -0400, my neighbor Aaron Ciesar wrote:
>>>Rod,
>>>
>>>I would go with ASIP (AppleShare IP) 6.2 based on your small network size
>>>and your Mac/PC ratio.
>>
>> The Mac-to-PC ratio isn't important: The server (and clients) need to be
>> completely cross-platform. This is due not only whether the desired app is
>> Mac-only or win-only, but also because they will be receiving customer
files.
>
>True.
>
>>>Avoid Novell NetWare like the plague. While NetWare is great for Windows,
>>>the Mac implementation is crap and reliant upon a third party source
>>>(Prosoft) for the client.
>>
>> Agreed 100% :)
>>
>>>MacOS X Server, is a very powerful solution, perhaps overkill. MacOS X
>>>Server is very stable and very fast for Web serving. However, ASIP 6.2 is
>>>faster at file serving than MacOS X Server. If you like a Unix
environment,
>>>go with MacOS X Server.
>>
>> And it has to ride on cheesey hardware. Have fun unpacking your brand new
>> G4 if you forget to lift it out of the box by the handles.
>> <http://www.macintouch.com>
>
>If unpacking becomes an issue in the choice of server platforms, then the
>whole concept of advocacy has just sunk to a new low. Although the report
>of the cracked case in pathetically funny.

        SCENARIO: Last Thursday & Friday I was at a SoHo design studio in Bucks
County (PA). When I arrived after a 3 hour trip in the middle of Hurricane
Floyd I arrived at the site... With the power off for over an hour and 3
inches of water in their basement, ruining thousands of dollars in
photography backgrounds. After the power came back on, I worked for hours
on a Umax recovering data.

        Next morning, the owners went out and wrote a check for >$2000 for a brand
spanking new G4 & accessories, which I set up for them.

--> Now just imagine their horror *if* when I was unpacking their new
production machine I cracked the case! :)

>>>WinNT Server is great for an all PC environment, and its Mac implementation
>>>is much better than NetWare. However, NT is much slower than ASIP for
>>>serving Mac files (NT used AppleTalk, ASIP uses TCP/IP).
>>
>> Yes, it is slower, but this is due to using AppleTalk instead of IP with
>> its smaller packet size (hence greater packet overhead). Windows NT5, err
>> Windows 2000 Server directly supports ASIP emulation, and even the free
>> beta is quite stable - I'm running beta 3 here at home, yet RC2 is already
>> shipping. Just keep it simple - A mantra that applies to *any* small
>> departmental server.
>
>For the sake of simplicity, I kept my opinions to currently shipping
>products. I know that WinNT 2000 Server will support AppleShare over IP,
>but it is still in development and thus I excluded it.

        Well, if you don't call 650,000 beta test copies "released," then what is?
Jump to <http://www.ntfaq.com> and see all of the independent Win2k tech
support info. And while you're there, check out the extra info that is
there for NT-MacOS connectivity, courtesy of yours truly.

        Besides, Release Candidate 2 (RC2) is already out, and **when installed
stripped down** (as we both like to do!) it is quite stable. Almost ANY OS
will run with improved stability when all of the gewgaws are stripped out
(with few exceptions).

>>>Now you can add
>>>third party software MacServer IP from (I have forgotten who makes it) that
>>>will allow NT to server Mac files over TCP/IP. However, this will solution
>>>is very expensive. If you are not familiar with setting up NT, go with
>>>ASIP.
>>
>> ExtremeZ-IP is available from Intergraph <http://www.intergraph.com>, and
>> MacServerIP is available in the US from TeamASA <http://www.TeamASA.com>,
>> and is published by Cyan in Germany [<http://www.cyan.de> or
>> <http://www.cyansoft.de> - I forget which.]
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: I am a distributor for TeamASA
>>
>>>As far as stability goes MacOS X Server will be the most stable,
followed by
>>>NetWare, then NT, finally ASIP. You should note that a properly configured
>>>ASIP server can go months without rebooting.
>>
>> I question your assertion that NetWare is more stable than NT, especially
>> when looking at the end-to-end (server AND client) stability. I would put
>> NetWare at the bottom of the trash heap because of needing to use extra
>> extensions & control panels on the Macs, which will make the already-shaky
>> MacOS even less stable.
>
>I should clarify myself. For serving Macs, NT is way more stable than
>NetWare. I completely agree with you on that point. I should have wrote in
>an all Windows environment, NetWare is more stable than NT.
>
>>>My FileMaker Pro Server 3.0 on MacOS 8.6 has an uptime of 10 months.
>>
>> And I have a customer that has run FMPro 3.0 on a Quadra 700 riding on top
>> of AppleShare Server 4.0.1 and System 7.5.1 with Retrospect 3.0a backing up
>> nightly to an NT server for over 2 years now with never a crash...
>
>You know, if I could only stop tweaking and upgrading my servers, I could
>have some truly impressive uptimes.

        It's that "tweaking" that can cause all kinds of troubles. I follow the
lead from the "Big Iron" boys: Only deploy changes after they have been
thoroughly tested.

>>>My ASIP 6.2.1 email server with Quick DNS Pro (secondary), Now up to Date,
>>>QuickMail Central Directory Server (LDAP)for MacOS has an uptime of 6
>>>months. My ASIP 6.2 web, print, and file server with Quick DNS Pro
>>>(primary) has been up for a month now (I am constantly tweaking this one
>>>hence the short uptime).
>>
>> OK, what are you running them on, and which MacOS - 8.5.1?
>
>I use MacOS 8.6 on all my systems. However, I do not use the standard
>installation. I custom strip the servers of many unneeded extensions and
>control panels.

        Absolutely... Plus I strip out ALL of the TrueType fonts to shut down the
TrueType rasterizing engine. This is not as important as it was in the 040
days, but every little bit helps.

        I'm also a bit surprised that you are NOT running MacOS 8.5.1 instead of
MacOS 8.6: The 8.6 Finder uses more CPU resources, decreasing background
performance for rendering... And (quite probably) file service as well.

>>>For compatibility, ASIP wins hands down, no questions asked. It is the
>>>fastest to setup, I did my whole network in 8 hours. It is by far the
>>>easiest to setup, and it has excellent stability and performance.
>>
>> I disagree: For compatibility, NT/Server wins hands down. No additional
>> software is needed for either the Mac or any Windows box connected to it.
>> Besides, for a small LAN (which this service bureau has) NetBEUI is even
>> faster than IP for PC-server transfers.
>
>I should point out that there is no additional software required for a
>connecting a PC or a Mac to and ASIP Server.

        Yes, but isn't configuring SMB on ASIPa bit difficult? Mo?!

>NetBEUI may be faster than TCP/IP for file transfer, but the Macs do not
>support NetBEUI natively. To use NetBEUI, Dave 2.1 would have to be
>purchased from Thursby Systems <http://www.thursby.com/>.
>
>Dave is sweet software, but it also decreases the stability of the Macs.
>Plus, at $150 per copy, it is a very expensive solution.

        Agreed 110%! :) BUT, NetBEUI and IP (and AppleTalk!) run side-by-side on
the same wire nicely: AFP/IP for the Macs, NetBEUI for the windows boxes;
and AppleTalk for PostScript® network printing.

        Plus, NetBIOS can be disabled as long as there are only 95, 98 &/or NT
clients. This is not important in this case (*unless* there is dedicated
Internet access), but NetBIOS attacks represent a MAJOR security hole.

>The use of NT in a small, cross-platform environment is significantly more
>expensive than ASIP. ASIP is ideal for these networks.
>
>> Lastly, I still stand by my assertion that a PCI hardware RAID controller
>> card is the best way to manage a large disk array - And this alone would
>> wipe out using a PCI Mac.
>
>I believe that Hammer Storage <http://www.hammerstorage.com/> makes a PCI
>hardware RAID controller for the Mac. I could be wrong though, their web
>site is a little sparse.

        Yeah, they were in bankruptcy after FWB split the company in half, between
software & hardware.. Probably, it's a SCSI-SCSI RAID controller...

>--
>
>Aaron B. Ciesar
>Data Manager/Analyst
>UPMC Stroke Institute

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Sep 22 1999 - 13:32:34 PDT