Re: [WinMac] Re: Larger Network
Welch, John C.(jwelch[at]aer.com)
Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:58:43 -0400
I have to weigh in on the sole source point. It's a non-issue. If you run
NT, you have a sole-source for your OS. If you use Solaris, same deal. If
you have an AS/400, both hardware and software come from IBM. Please. Dan
does have some valid points about the server hardware from Apple, although
the machines the have on the web site, (although not yet available), have
dual power supplies, so that's a good thing. (as with all my servers, the
P/S go first.)
As far as the slot issue goes, for a file server, again, if you really need
more than 2 dual - channel SCSI cards and a gigabit or ATM card, then I
*seriously* recommend you leave both the NT and Mac toys alone, and get
yourself a fat Sun Enterprise server or a nice 12 - processor AS/400,
because you are needing BIG iron.
As far as NetWare goes, I wouldn't recommend migrating TO it, but if you
have a nice stable NetWare 5 setup, and it's running well, there is NO need
to just throw it away. Prosoft makes a nice client, and NetWare is loads
better than NT.
Breathe deeply, plan, stay calm, plan, buy the tools YOU need, plan, and
party on.
john
> Len makes some good points; but with ASIP 6.2 you're stuck with only one
> hardware vendor... And unfortunately Apple's wares are only desktop quality
> - Not server quality. Plus, they're not overly expandable with only two
> free PCI slots after you drop in a SCSI controller.
>
> Two issues that are often overlooked are scalability and (especially)
> reliability. Apple took a stab at the reliability with their nice Network
> Server 500 and 700 machines; but with only about 100 machines per month
> being sold...
>
> Fortunately, your 220 node school LAN does not need 24/7 reliability, so
> you may very well "get away" with a converted desktop machine acting as a
> server. BUT, desktop machines are designed not for 24/365 dependability,
> maintainability; and I/O throughput. Instead, they (desktop boxes) are
> designed for fast 3D display, high Spec95FP numbers, and low cost. [If you
> don't believe me, then why are there no 2 or 4-way Athlon systems?!]
>
> I certainly DO agree with my pal Len on steering clear of NetWare: It's
> butt-ugly and uses wacky HAM disk drivers.
>
> `As for the Qube boxes and rack-mount "skinnies," yes, they look cool.
> But, IMHO, the hardware is not battle-tested for 24/7 reliability and
> cooling. I looked closely at their products at MacWorld in late July; and I
> think they tried to squeeze a bit too much into too small a package - Both
> the cube as well as the 1U rackmount modules. Maybe I'm wrong, but every
> time I've seen packaging take precedence over good (electronic & cooling)
> design, reliability takes a hit.
>
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
>
> At 10:46 PM 10/3/99 -0400, Len wrote:
>> At 9:50 PM -0500 10/1/99, V. Wysong wrote:
>>> We're getting advice from vendors who say to ignore Appleshare IP 6.2
>>> because Windows NT or Novel will serve
>>> the Mac needs without complicating the network with a second type of
>>> network. They're offering to admin & support a Win or Novel
>>> network remotely (of course for a per incident service fee).
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>> Yeah, don't touch Novell with a 100 foot pole! It's
>> outdated, it's ugly and there's really no reason is 1999/2000 to be
>> using it!!
>>
>> As far as NT vs. AShare/IP, it's a tradeoff since NT can
>> share Mac and AShare/IP can share Wintel - HOWEVER, since NT 4.x only
>> does AppleTalk sharing while AShare/IP does IP-based sharing, that's
>> a BIG win for your Mac users in terms of sharing performance.
>>
>>
>> Leonard
>
>
> * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
>
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Mon Oct 04 1999 - 08:05:33 PDT
|
|