Re: [WinMac] Re: Re: Larger Network

Welch, John C.(jwelch[at]aer.com)
Mon, 04 Oct 1999 14:56:44 -0400

inline again

> From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
> Reply-To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list"<winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 13:03:22 -0400
> To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list" <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu>
> Subject: [WinMac] Re: Re: Larger Network
>
>
> Inline, again:
>
> At 12:41 PM 10/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> my comments inline, stuff cut, yadda....
>>
>>
>>> Here, I gently disagree with you; and this goes *directly* to my point:
>>> Usually, I've found disk drives to go first, and *not* (well-designed)
>>> server power supplies. And this reveals a fatal flaw for PCI PowerPC Macs:
>>> No PCI option card RAID controllers. And even *if* there were hardware PCI
>>> RAID controllers, then that would use up one valuable slot.
>>
>> Umm...there ARE PCI hardware RAID controllers...they aren't advertised as
>> nicely as they might be, but they exist.
>
> Oh really? Who makes them - I'm serious about this...
>
I'll get you some names dude.

>> Again... HOW many slots do you
>> need? If you really need more, then get a breakout box, which loses nothing
>> in speed, and can gain you in reliability, because it has it's own P/S.
>
> Not quite: The breakout boxes only support 33 mHz PCI bus speed. I asked
> at MacWorld on this one! :)
>
>> So if the CPU goes, you can hook the breakout box to another Mac, and be up
>> even faster. (although gentle disagreement is a rather nice change of pace
>> online. Wow...civil discourse...what next...manners? lol)
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Here again, I gently disagree with you: For small LAN's for graphics,
>>> prepress, & multimedia - Ethernet bandwidth and lots of RAID-protected
>>> storage are the norm, and not so much CPU horsepower.
>>
>> Maybe, but by the time you get a Compaq or an IBM server with big RAID, BIG
>> I/O, etc, you are in the AS/400 area pricewise...and for reliability, an
>> AS/400 trounces all NT/Unix/Mac competitors. Also, a 400 is *very* easy to
>> set up, and is TRULY certified at C2 and better security, even ON a
>> network...unlike NT's PR sleight of hand.
>
> Agreed 100% on the security issue, but not on the cost. Plus, when you buy
> an AS/400 you're (pretty much) stuck with IBM stuff inside, with expensive
> upgrade options... At least in the x86 server space you have competition
> for "commodity" servers such as ProLiants, NetServers, Netfinity's, yada
> yada yada... This helps hold down the (hardware) price.
>
> Also, the issue of maintenance comes up: x86 boxes are a LOT easier to
> work on than an AS/400: You so much as sneeze at an AS/400 and IBM goes
> anal with the warranty and support charges.
>

Um, cost on a full- big dog x86 server from IBM/Compaq with multiple
processors gets into the low 40K range, and you can get an AS/400 for that.
There is also a lot more third party for the 400 than you think, but with a
400, you tend to not need it as much. Maintenance on a 400 is a different
world. They are built from the ground up to last. The last one I worked with
was bought around 91 - 92, does 100% of the computing functions for a city
of 40,000 citizens, and 400 employees, runs 24x7, and to this date in time
has *never* crashed. Yeah, the maintenance contracts might be more
expensive, but show me an NT box under constant heavy load that is
approaching a decade of uptime. Maybe it is easier to work on X86 boxes,
(although NOT a Compaq 1600R), but then again, you pretty much NEVER have to
work on an AS/400.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I don't like to load additional components (such as the MacIPX stack) on a
>>> Mac because it's just one more thing to go wrong and cause crashes. Been
>>> there, done her...
>>
>> Agreed, but I have heard many nice things about the Prosoft client, and
>> NetWare's directory services are a lot more proven than the unreleased AD
>
> Agreed about NDS vs AD; but in a small LAN neither is used. For this user
> needing hardware for a 220 client (~250 node) LAN either AD or NDS should
> work... But I sure as hell wouldn't want to deploy AD on anything larger
> than a class C subnet!
>
> As for ProSoft's IPX client, it's just one more thing to support. As I
> said in the MacWorld seminar 9 weeks ago, you can make the server "bend" to
> support the Macs; or you can make the Macs "bend" to accommodate the
> server. With NetWare 5 you are pretty much now stuck with the latter...
>

Well, in the end, I have found it easier with Macs, because OT is very
flexible when used correctly, to just add the stack to the Mac. Causes less
problems than modifying the server. At least if the clients bend, a bad
install kills one box instead of 50.

have fun
john

* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Oct 04 1999 - 12:04:37 PDT