That's the fundamental question. Give us a little more info.
As usual I disagree with Dan. Yes, Mac services is an afterthought (it's
not even made by Novell anymore, but by Prosoft engineering) but it might
be adequate depemding on your server needs. The neat thing about Novell
is its ease of administration and its granularity.
Contact name for printer (if not same as Sys. Admin.):
Thanks much.
--
Jeff Johnson
jjohnson@wi.net
Subject: Re: Using NT for a MacFile server, newer tech
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:41:40 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
OK, here goes... I'll reply inline...
At 04:49 PM 9/21/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>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).
You might as well have shot the wad and gone to Fibre Channel (FC-AL) SAN
- Especially if you have large files. FC-AL extends the SCSI specifications
to multiple computers.
Yes, external RAID devices with SCSI-SCSI adapters will work; and in your
case fill your 100Base-TX pipeline. But, if it's a small shop it's
beneficial to use the server as a combo server/workstation, and then
performance will indeed suffer. This is one of the nice things about NT - I
have three small customers who use combo NT machines in just this way. In
fact, two of the three are used for photo editing and retouching with
Photoshop, and also as file servers for their Mac workstations. Here, they
need the disk speed for 200 MB photoshop files as well as "filling the wire."
>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.
As I was quoted in The Register...
Buy more RAM...
It's cheaper than therapy!
>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.
Just wait... You'll get there quicker than you'll realize! :)
>I'm not sure what you mean about NT server and workstation RAID's being
>transportable - I mean, yeah that's true.
OK, Disk Administrator for NT/W will create RAID 0 (striping), RAID 1
(mirroring), and spanning volumes. NT/Server will create RAID 1 and RAID 5
(Striping with distributed parity) and spanning volumes.
The trick is to load both NT/S *AND* NT/W if you want to play games, i.e.
if you want a server that has RAID 0 volumes, or a workstation that has
RAID 5 volumes.
>AFAIK, you can take a SoftRaid
>(included with ASIP BTW) RAID and move it to any mac you want, server or
>workstation too.
Yes, I was a beta tester for SoftRAID 1.5. And, version 1.1 was repackaged
with AppleShare Server 4.1. BUT, SoftRAID is not quite transportable to any
Mac: It's PowerPC native, and will not transfer back to a 68040 Mac... Been
there, done that. (I still like to use the Quadra 840AV with AppleShare
Server 4.0.2 as a small server, because the disk I/O is pretty good.)
>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.
I don't normally recommend booting from an array, but in your case it's
probably not that bad. Instead, I normally use a small (~1 - 2 gig) HDD
dedicated for the task, with two partitions each with their own OS
instance. For NT, the Boot Manager (BOOT.INI) handles the switching; while
for the Mac I use Silverlining's Silver Volumes D/A to mount & hide the
spare volume. On the Mac, I use a smaller "Emergency" partition (now
bloated up to about 100 MB) with a minimal OS, Norton Utilities,
Disinfectant, and Worm Food.
>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.
Thanks for the heads-up on Newer: They already went through bankruptcy
once when RAM prices tumbled in 1995-96.
Subject: Re: [WinMac] cross-platform and MS Word
From: Lesley Vita <lesley.vita@ntu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:24:31 +0930
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Kittrell,
I don't know what's causing your "out of memory" messages, but when=20
using different versions of word, EVEN ON THE SAME PLATFORM, bear in=20
mind that what microsoft says about backwards compatibility is not=20
strictly true. The formatting codes used in word 5.1 don't=20
necessarily do the same thing in word 98 and this can cause some=20
strange results when you open a word 5.1 doc in word 98. Formatting,=20
paper sizes, etc can be very different.
Despite the supposed compatibility between mac word 98 and pc word=20
97, problems are even worse in cross platform situations. I've found=20
that the best thing to do is to keep the formatting as simple as=20
possible, and to use few fonts. And always check the paper size: for=20
some reason, A4 5.1 docs opened in 98 revert to US letter small. I've=20
found a work around for this, but it's a nuisance nonetheless. Fonts=20
have always been a problem in cross platform situations but, beyond=20
trying to ensure that the same fonts from the same sources are on=20
both platforms, or having the fonts resident on your postscript=20
printer, I don't know what you can do about that
At 2:44 PM -0500 18/9/99, KR wrote:=E7
>----------------------
>From: Kittrell Rushing, UT Chattanooga <krushing@cecasun.utc.edu>
>----------------------
>
>I'm having a very perplexing problem -- one I have not seen before,=20
>and, perhaps, someone on the list might be able to share with me=20
>(and with the list) what's going on.
>
>Here's the problem:
>
>I teach a course entitled "Computer Skills for Communication=20
>Majors." We use a Mac lab that contains a combination of Mac=20
>platforms and software -- most of the computers are G-3 Macs with=20
>both Microsoft Office 98 and Microsoft Word 5.1 loaded.
>
>Many of my students have Windows computers at home or in their=20
>dorms... I've always told my young people that it really makes=20
>little difference in word processing if they have a pc or a Mac as=20
>far as document compatibility is concerned because MSWord will open=20
>documents created on either the Windows or the Mac platform -- and=20
>I've told the young people that if they have a pc rather than a Mac=20
>they can use the pc formatted disk in the Mac... and save to the pc=20
>formatted disk from either Microsoft Word 5.1 or Microsoft Word98.=20
>...and until this week, I experienced nothing that made me doubt=20
>what I've been preaching.
Regards,
Lesley Vita
rfc 1925: "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:Lesley.Vita@ntu.edu.au
vmail: 61 + 8 + 8946 6416
smail: Faculty of Science, Information Technology and Education
Northern Territory University
Darwin NT 0909 Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Speaking of RAID controllers
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:56:29 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Speaking of RAID controllers, in response to a question about which RAID
controllers support Level 4 (Striping with a single parity drive), I
received the following:
>>>>
<excerpt>
To: AlphaNT Mail List <<AlphaNT@AlphaNT.com>
From: "Kirk R. Erichsen" <<Kirke@inteli-home.com>
Subject: RE: Hardware RAID controllers
Reply-To: AlphaNT Mail List <<AlphaNT@AlphaNT.com>
X-RCPT-TO: <<expresso@SNIP.NET>
All,
Mylex XtremeRAID 1100 (DAC1100A), based on the StrongARM SA110 275 MHz
RISC
processor (a close cousin of both ARM and Alpha), with up to 3
channels,
128 MB of ECC protected SDRAM and Mylexes latest inhouse SCSI ASIC
designs
for U2 SCSI. Supports 0, 1, 4, 5, 6 (RAID 10) and 7 (JBOD). One
issue:
While it is supported by Intel and Alpha under Windows NT and Linux (VA
Research distrubutes a Red Hat MILO and kernel with support), the board
is
a 64 bit, 33 MHz PCI 2.2 card with all that may indicate to you. Older
boards need not apply (PCI 2.2 is backward compatible, but there are
some
issues with the old Alcor/Alcor II chipset and the implementation of
ARCSBIOS on the Deskstation/Samsung 164UX boards.
Good luck.
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
Subject: Re: PowerPrint for Networks
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:04:28 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Yeah, this is basically a JetDirect box with special drivers... And it
should work as advertised, allowing a whole slew of Macs to print to a
standard Windows raster printer.
Also, check out their extensive list of supported printers at:
<http://www.infowave.com/print/infowave_printer_compatibilitylist.htm>
At 10:36 PM 9/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Has anyone used the new network version of PowerPrint from Infowave?
>
>http://infowave.com/powerprint/PowerPrint_Network_intro.htm
>
>Does this product allow multiple Mac users on a LAN to connect to one
>non-postscript printer?
>
>Thanks much.
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Virus alert
From: Lesley Vita <lesley.vita@ntu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:22:17 +0930
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a hoax that appeared in the first half of 99. I do wish=20
people would take the trouble to check before they disseminate=20
warnings about supposed viruses. Too many wolf cries make people=20
blase about all virus warnings.
A good place to check for viruses and hoaxes is=20
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter
which is Symantec's anti-virus research centre.
At 7:52 AM -0500 20/9/99, stuart wrote:=E7
>another one to be on the alert for
>
>>FYI, In case you receive an e-mail titled "How to Give a Cat a=20
>>Colonic" DO NOT open it. It will erase everything on your hard=20
>>drive. Forward this
>>message to as many people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus
>>and not many people know about it. This information was announced=20
>>yesterday morning by IBM; please share it with everyone in your=20
>>address book so that the spreading of the virus may be stopped.=20
>>This is very dangerous virus and there is no remedy for it at this=20
>>time.
>>Please practice cautionary measures and forward this to all your on-line
>>friends ASAP.
Regards,
Lesley Vita
rfc 1925: "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:Lesley.Vita@ntu.edu.au
vmail: 61 + 8 + 8946 6416
smail: Faculty of Science, Information Technology and Education
Northern Territory University
Darwin NT 0909 Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Using a USB scrolling mouse on a Mac
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:01:44 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From <<http://www.macintouch.com/imac.html>
Alessandro Levi Montalcini's USB OverDrive 1.2
<<http://www.usboverdrive.com/> "adds some useful new features, fixes all
known problems, and improves performance for many existing features" in
the universal USB driver for mice, trackballs, joysticks and gamepads.
This version of the $25 shareware requires Mac OS 8.5, recommends Mac OS
8.6 and supports Mac OS 9.
Jason Mark used USB Overdrive for a Microsoft USB mouse but "found it
sort of sloppy" and came up with another option offering a scroll wheel:
>>>>
<excerpt>"Another solution I found was USB Mouse-in-a-Box Scrolling.
This is also listed as a PC-only mouse, but Kensington's great tech
support emailed me the location of [Kensington drivers]
<<http://www.kensington.com/support/software.html>. Kensington also
creates a 2 button 'Mac' Mouse in a Box, but which does not include
scrolling. I believe the Mac version is blue and costs more money than
the scrolling mouse. I find the Kensington to be better than the
Microsoft, and at a better price, too ($25) ... I know the [round] mouse
is the #1 thing that PC people in our shop don't like when learning
Macs."
</excerpt><<<<<<<<
Thought this would be helpful for us spoiled NT users! :)
Cheers!
Dan
Subject: Re: [WinMac] LPD Printing issue, macs involved
From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:13:42 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 8:20 PM -0700 9/21/99, Cesar Morales wrote:
>Is there any software or way of running LPD for printer access over
>maiframe environment on a macintosh?
Are you trying to print FROM a Mac to a remote printer using
LPD, or having some remote machine print to your Mac's printer via
LPD - I'm confused!
If the former, Apple's Laserwriter driver supports LPD - you
just need to use the Desktop Printer Manager software to configure
it. If you are looking to serve LPD from your Mac, you may be SOL
- the only LPD server for the Mac that I am aware of (from
Intercon/Ascend/Lucent/etc.) is no longer available.
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: Film Bureau and Platforms
From: "Aaron Ciesar" <aciesar@stroke.upmc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:17:41 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Rod,
I would go with ASIP (AppleShare IP) 6.2 based on your small network size
and your Mac/PC ratio.
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.
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.
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). 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.
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.
My FileMaker Pro Server 3.0 on MacOS 8.6 has an uptime of 10 months. 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).
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.
--
Aaron B. Ciesar
Data Manager/Analyst
UPMC Stroke Institute
----------
> Subject: Film Bureau and Platforms
> From: "Darryl Lee" <lee@darryl.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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
Subject: Re: Tar & archive formats
From: John Droggitis <johnd@cybernex.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:42:21 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> Exactly what I said above. It's a FLAT FILE structure based
> on pathnames rather than having actual "links" between a parent
> directory and it's children. And yes, each of those entries has a
> header with some basic information - but information that is
> incomplete for Unix, let alone other platforms (Wintel, MacOS, etc.).
Right. I'm not arguing with your flat file assertion. What I'm saying is that
the there's nothing inadequate with using a flat file, as long as it contains all
needed information. And the information that it contains is not incomplete:
<geek> all the fields of the unix stat structure, which is the _complete_ set of
file statistics, except the device specific details, are included in the tar
header </geek>.
> Also, as I noted in my message, those pathnames are SHORT
> (100 characters), ASCII-based, which makes storing/restoring
> non-English filenames pretty much impossible. To use your
> reference, see
> <http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC112> and
> <http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC109>).
>
> GNU tar may support absolute pathnames, but it's not part of
> the POSIX spec for tar.
>
GNU tar supports both absolute pathnames and (very) long filenames and paths.
POSIX specs don't consern me, it's the actual product you use that matters.
> Let's also not forget about other well known limitations of
> Tar such as EXTREMELY poor recovery of corrupted archives, lack of a
> segmenting architecture, Unix-centricity, and of course no support
> for integrated compression (NOTE: .tgz is NOT integrated compression
> since it requires decompression of the entire archive before being
> able to extract a single item!)
Look, I'm not saying that tar is the best archiver/backup solution. All I'm
trying to say is that tar is perfectly adequate. The original point that I was
refuting was "don't use unix as a fileserver because tar is no good", and it was
based on incorrect assertions about tar. Tar is very prevalent and widestpread,
has ports to every major platform and it supports features that stuffit and
retrospect don't have, but I REALLY don't want to get into that. Even if you
don't like tar, there are commercial solutions you can use for unix as well, such
as CTAR (which is based on tar :-) and solidstor.
> As the original author of StuffIt Expander, and most of the
> components of the StuffIt Engine (incl. the Tar support) I stand by
> my categorization of Tar and it's (lack of) usefulness as a backup
> and archiving solution.
Nice to see your credentials. I've been a software developer and administrator
primarily on unix machines for 10 years now, and I can read the tar source code
and understand it - and I have. I think I've proven my point and since this is
getting way off topic, let's continue this privately, but I really don't think
there's much left to say.
--John
Subject: Re: Film Bureau and Platforms
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:55:56 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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.
>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>
>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.
>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.
>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...
>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?
>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.
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.
>--
>
>Aaron B. Ciesar
>Data Manager/Analyst
>UPMC Stroke Institute
>
>----------
>> Subject: Film Bureau and Platforms
>> From: "Darryl Lee" <lee@darryl.com>
>> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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] Re: Tar & archive formats
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:19:51 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Actually, I believe it's *extremely* important to keep this thread going,
because it is central to my recommendation to NOT deploy MacOS X Server.
As long as there is NO viable - Read Mac-Friendly - backup solution, I
will *not* recommend MacOS X Server. And as long as MacOS X Server runs on
Apple hardware, with no PCI hardware RAID controllers, a rigorous backup
schedule must be followed because of the lack of fault-tolerant disk storage.
In short, these are the reasons why I do *NOT* recommend MacOS X Server.
**IF** MacOS X Server would run on Alpha or x86/K7 hardware, then I would
consider running it in locations that have a full time Unix administrator.
Cheers!
Dan
At 10:42 AM 9/22/99 +0000, John Droggitis <johnd@cybernex.net> wrote:
>Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>
>> Exactly what I said above. It's a FLAT FILE structure based
>> on pathnames rather than having actual "links" between a parent
>> directory and it's children. And yes, each of those entries has a
>> header with some basic information - but information that is
>> incomplete for Unix, let alone other platforms (Wintel, MacOS, etc.).
>
>Right. I'm not arguing with your flat file assertion. What I'm saying is
that
>the there's nothing inadequate with using a flat file, as long as it
contains all
>needed information. And the information that it contains is not incomplete:
><geek> all the fields of the unix stat structure, which is the _complete_
set of
>file statistics, except the device specific details, are included in the tar
>header </geek>.
>
>> Also, as I noted in my message, those pathnames are SHORT
>> (100 characters), ASCII-based, which makes storing/restoring
>> non-English filenames pretty much impossible. To use your
>> reference, see
>> <http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC112> and
>> <http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC109>).
>>
>> GNU tar may support absolute pathnames, but it's not part of
>> the POSIX spec for tar.
>>
>
>GNU tar supports both absolute pathnames and (very) long filenames and paths.
>POSIX specs don't consern me, it's the actual product you use that matters.
>
>> Let's also not forget about other well known limitations of
>> Tar such as EXTREMELY poor recovery of corrupted archives, lack of a
>> segmenting architecture, Unix-centricity, and of course no support
>> for integrated compression (NOTE: .tgz is NOT integrated compression
>> since it requires decompression of the entire archive before being
>> able to extract a single item!)
>
>Look, I'm not saying that tar is the best archiver/backup solution. All I'm
>trying to say is that tar is perfectly adequate. The original point that
I was
>refuting was "don't use unix as a fileserver because tar is no good", and
it was
>based on incorrect assertions about tar. Tar is very prevalent and
widestpread,
>has ports to every major platform and it supports features that stuffit and
>retrospect don't have, but I REALLY don't want to get into that. Even if you
>don't like tar, there are commercial solutions you can use for unix as
well, such
>as CTAR (which is based on tar :-) and solidstor.
>
>> As the original author of StuffIt Expander, and most of the
>> components of the StuffIt Engine (incl. the Tar support) I stand by
>> my categorization of Tar and it's (lack of) usefulness as a backup
>> and archiving solution.
>
>Nice to see your credentials. I've been a software developer and
administrator
>primarily on unix machines for 10 years now, and I can read the tar source
code
>and understand it - and I have. I think I've proven my point and since
this is
>getting way off topic, let's continue this privately, but I really don't
think
>there's much left to say.
>
>--John
>
>
>* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
>
>
Yours truly,
Daniel L. Schwartz,
Electrical Engineer.
Dan's MacOS Consulting
239 Great Road
Maple Shade, NJ 08052-3044
856-642-7666 <-- Note new area code (was 609)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
<mailto:expresso@snip.net>
ALTERNATE: <mailto:expresso@workmail.com>
Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
<http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
**Your UltraBac Solution Source**
-> NEW! Sign up for the Mac-NT Mailing list at:
<http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Mac-NT>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Tar & archive formats
From: Michael Bartosh <bartosh@apple.tamu.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:00:18 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> Actually, I believe it's *extremely* important to keep this
>thread going,
>because it is central to my recommendation to NOT deploy MacOS X Server.
Uhhh- OmniBackup??? Released 2 days ago???
> As long as there is NO viable - Read Mac-Friendly - backup solution, I
>will *not* recommend MacOS X Server. And as long as MacOS X Server runs on
>Apple hardware, with no PCI hardware RAID controllers, a rigorous backup
>schedule must be followed because of the lack of fault-tolerant disk storage.
>
> In short, these are the reasons why I do *NOT* recommend
>MacOS X Server.
>**IF** MacOS X Server would run on Alpha or x86/K7 hardware, then I would
>consider running it in locations that have a full time Unix administrator.
>
> Cheers!
> Dan
>
>At 10:42 AM 9/22/99 +0000, John Droggitis <johnd@cybernex.net> wrote:
> >Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> >
> >> Exactly what I said above. It's a FLAT FILE structure based
> >> on pathnames rather than having actual "links" between a parent
> >> directory and it's children. And yes, each of those entries has a
> >> header with some basic information - but information that is
> >> incomplete for Unix, let alone other platforms (Wintel, MacOS, etc.).
> >
> >Right. I'm not arguing with your flat file assertion. What I'm saying is
>that
> >the there's nothing inadequate with using a flat file, as long as it
>contains all
> >needed information. And the information that it contains is not incomplete:
> ><geek> all the fields of the unix stat structure, which is the _complete_
>set of
> >file statistics, except the device specific details, are included in the tar
> >header </geek>.
> >
> >> Also, as I noted in my message, those pathnames are SHORT
> >> (100 characters), ASCII-based, which makes storing/restoring
> >> non-English filenames pretty much impossible. To use your
> >> reference, see
> >> <http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC112> and
> >> <http://www.gnu.org/manual/tar/html_mono/tar.html#TOC109>).
> >>
> >> GNU tar may support absolute pathnames, but it's not part of
> >> the POSIX spec for tar.
> >>
> >
> >GNU tar supports both absolute pathnames and (very) long filenames
>and paths.
> >POSIX specs don't consern me, it's the actual product you use that matters.
> >
> >> Let's also not forget about other well known limitations of
> >> Tar such as EXTREMELY poor recovery of corrupted archives, lack of a
> >> segmenting architecture, Unix-centricity, and of course no support
> >> for integrated compression (NOTE: .tgz is NOT integrated compression
> >> since it requires decompression of the entire archive before being
> >> able to extract a single item!)
> >
> >Look, I'm not saying that tar is the best archiver/backup solution. All I'm
> >trying to say is that tar is perfectly adequate. The original point that
>I was
> >refuting was "don't use unix as a fileserver because tar is no good", and
>it was
> >based on incorrect assertions about tar. Tar is very prevalent and
>widestpread,
> >has ports to every major platform and it supports features that stuffit and
> >retrospect don't have, but I REALLY don't want to get into that.
>Even if you
> >don't like tar, there are commercial solutions you can use for unix as
>well, such
> >as CTAR (which is based on tar :-) and solidstor.
> >
> >> As the original author of StuffIt Expander, and most of the
> >> components of the StuffIt Engine (incl. the Tar support) I stand by
> >> my categorization of Tar and it's (lack of) usefulness as a backup
> >> and archiving solution.
> >
> >Nice to see your credentials. I've been a software developer and
>administrator
> >primarily on unix machines for 10 years now, and I can read the tar source
>code
> >and understand it - and I have. I think I've proven my point and since
>this is
> >getting way off topic, let's continue this privately, but I really don't
>think
> >there's much left to say.
> >
> >--John
> >
> >
> >* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
> >
> >
>
> Yours truly,
> Daniel L. Schwartz,
> Electrical Engineer.
>
> Dan's MacOS Consulting
> 239 Great Road
> Maple Shade, NJ 08052-3044
>
> 856-642-7666 <-- Note new area code (was 609)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THERE ARE NO ATTACHMENTS TO THIS MESSAGE, SO IF ONE
> APPEARS WITH IT, DO NOT OPEN OR DOWNLOAD IT!
> <mailto:expresso@snip.net>
>
> ALTERNATE: <mailto:expresso@workmail.com>
>
> Webmaster for <http://www.Faulknerstudios.com>,
> <http://www.BrakeAndGo.com>
>
> **Your UltraBac Solution Source**
>
>-> NEW! Sign up for the Mac-NT Mailing list at:
> <http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Mac-NT>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
Subject: Re: Tar & archive formats
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:19:52 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Alright, how's THAT for battle-tested enterprise software - A 1.0 release!
Oh, and by the way, what about all of the SCSI driver & firmware problems
with the (non-beige) G3 & G4 boxes with third party SCSI cards - Does this
software require a specific tape drive and/or SCSI card because of these
issues?
[I correspond regularly with Paul Bunn at UltraBac over these very issues;
and one of the biggest headaches is adapcrap SCSI chips & drivers...]
At 11:00 AM 9/22/99 -0500, Mike B. wrote:
>> Actually, I believe it's *extremely* important to keep this
>>thread going,
>>because it is central to my recommendation to NOT deploy MacOS X Server.
>
>Uhhh- OmniBackup??? Released 2 days ago???
>
Subject: [WinMac] Re: Tar & archive formats
From: Michael Bartosh <bartosh@apple.tamu.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:33:48 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> Alright, how's THAT for battle-tested enterprise software - A
>1.0 release!
What is MacOS X Server, then? 1.o is not a bad thing, esp. if the
software comes from Omni. But your statement was that there was no
back up solution. You don't like tar although I still have not
figured out why, and you ignore Omni. Does not sound like 'none' to
me.
>
> Oh, and by the way, what about all of the SCSI driver &
>firmware problems
>with the (non-beige) G3 & G4 boxes with third party SCSI cards - Does this
>software require a specific tape drive and/or SCSI card because of these
>issues?
>
> [I correspond regularly with Paul Bunn at UltraBac over these
>very issues;
>and one of the biggest headaches is adapcrap SCSI chips & drivers...]
>
>At 11:00 AM 9/22/99 -0500, Mike B. wrote:
> >> Actually, I believe it's *extremely* important to keep this
> >>thread going,
> >>because it is central to my recommendation to NOT deploy MacOS X Server.
> >
> >Uhhh- OmniBackup??? Released 2 days ago???
> >
>
>
>* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
Subject: Re: Tar & archive formats: OS X Not Ready for prime time
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:34:30 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Mike,
I don't like TAR for the reasons Leonard enumerated. As for Omni, I
didn't even see anything on MacInTouch when I just looked through their
site.
Oh, and by the way, courtesy of MacInTouch, punch up:
<<http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n60210> if you want a
good laugh...
<bold>TITLE
</bold><paraindent><param>left</param>
Mac OS X Server: Third-party PCI Cards Require Drivers Article ID:
60210
</paraindent>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bold>TOPIC</bold>
<paraindent><param>left</param>
Can I use a third-party PCI card with Mac OS X Server?
</paraindent>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bold>DISCUSSION</bold>
<paraindent><param>left</param>
Mac OS X Server uses a different driver model than Mac OS 8. Third party
PCI card vendors must write drivers specifically to support Mac OS X
Server. Currently no third-party vendors have announced plans to do so.
Mac OS X Server only includes drivers to support Apple's specific SCSI
and Ethernet BTO options for the Power Macintosh G3 line. Due to
variations between Apple and third party cards, even third-party cards
that are very similar to the Apple-supplied cards may not function
properly, if at all. Contact your card's vendor to determine if they are
currently selling a version of their product that they believe will work
with Mac OS X Server.
</paraindent>
<bold> Now, let's contrast this with Microsoft's extensive Hardware
Compatibility List (HCL), at:
<<http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp>
And Novell, for all its faults, has their "Yes" hardware list as
well...
</bold>
Cheers!
Dan
At 11:33 AM 9/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> Alright, how's THAT for battle-tested enterprise software - A
>>1.0 release!
>
>What is MacOS X Server, then? 1.o is not a bad thing, esp. if the
>software comes from Omni. But your statement was that there was no
>back up solution. You don't like tar although I still have not
>figured out why, and you ignore Omni. Does not sound like 'none' to
>me.
>
>>
>> Oh, and by the way, what about all of the SCSI driver &
>>firmware problems
>>with the (non-beige) G3 & G4 boxes with third party SCSI cards - Does
this
>>software require a specific tape drive and/or SCSI card because of
these
>>issues?
>>
>> [I correspond regularly with Paul Bunn at UltraBac over these
>>very issues;
>>and one of the biggest headaches is adapcrap SCSI chips & drivers...]
>>
>>At 11:00 AM 9/22/99 -0500, Mike B. wrote:
>> >> Actually, I believe it's *extremely* important to keep this
>> >>thread going,
>> >>because it is central to my recommendation to NOT deploy MacOS X
Server.
>> >
>> >Uhhh- OmniBackup??? Released 2 days ago???
>> >
Subject: Re: Film Bureau and Platforms
From: "Aaron Ciesar" <aciesar@stroke.upmc.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:18:34 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
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.
>>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.
>>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 severing 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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
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.
--
Aaron B. Ciesar
Data Manager/Analyst
UPMC Stroke Institute
Subject: Re: Film Bureau and Platforms
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:12:14 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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=AE 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
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: Film Bureau and Platforms
From: "Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:36:43 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
just focusing on one thing here..
> 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.
2 items on 8.6:
1) 8.6 fixes a LONG standing bug in the Ethernet drivers, whereby
under very heavy loads, the Ethernet driver shut down, requiring a reboot.
2) 8.6 brings a lot more plumbing out of the 68k emulator, and what
is happening is that the nanokernel is doing a more proper job of task
scheduling, making it harder for one task to dominate. It's still more
cooperative than not, but better than it was. (and as we all know, NT's
scheduler is nothing to write home about...:)
john
Subject: MacOS Finder priority [WAS:Re: Film Bureau and Platforms]
From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:10:49 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear John,
I'll reply inline...
At 04:36 PM 9/22/99 -0400, John W. wrote:
>just focusing on one thing here..
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>2 items on 8.6:
> 1) 8.6 fixes a LONG standing bug in the Ethernet drivers, whereby
>under very heavy loads, the Ethernet driver shut down, requiring a reboot.
Yes, the ethernet bug was fixed... But isn't that an issue of Open
Transport - The version shipping with 8.6, and not 8.6 itself? Also, wasn't
this mainly a problem with 4 year old 7500/90 machines that only had one
crystal instead of two, specifically those with serial numbers of nn544...
and lower, along with some nn545... boards?
> 2) 8.6 brings a lot more plumbing out of the 68k emulator, and what
>is happening is that the nanokernel is doing a more proper job of task
>scheduling, making it harder for one task to dominate. It's still more
>cooperative than not, but better than it was. (and as we all know, NT's
>scheduler is nothing to write home about...:)
The issue of boosting the priority of the Finder in MacOS 8.6 does not,
AFAIK, have anything to do with removing 68k code... It's a decision that
was made in coding. **Can this be tweaked in ResEdit?**
Along those same lines, NT4's task scheduling (time quanta allocation) can
be easily tweaked with NTFrob, freely available at
<http://www.ntinternals.com>.
Cheers!
Dan
End of WinMac Digest
* Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *