Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] Slightly Off-Topic: MacOS as server or Linux?
From: Hannu Krosing (hannu@trust.ee)
Date: Sat Nov 22 1997 - 08:30:14 EST
Oliver Wrede wrote:
> My current opinion is, that if there is someone, who can
> handle the Linux box, we can use the money to buy a bulk
> Intel machine with huge diskspace (mybe a RAID disk) and
> best-of backup devices.
As long as you don't buy 3com cards with it.
I had to go back to NT server after spending a whole week trying to
get netatalk with IP (from ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/pub/user-supported/asun/)
running at 100Mb/s (it ran fine with 10Mb/s, about 1.5 times faster than NT
without
IP support and more than twice as fast as plain ethertalk between Mac boxes.
We could have used it at 10 Mb/s and still be better off than we are now but
we had already bought a 100Mb/s hub and our 10Mb/s hub was full ;(
Now we get throughput of about 900kb/sek from appletalk and NT server running
100Mb/s
while it used to be over 1000 using IP /linux/10Mb/s. And it was much snappier
too - better
reaction times when clicking a disk icon and so on.
As I found out later by joining the linux-vortex-bug mailing list, there are
severe
problems with 3com 100Mb/s cards after merging the drivers.
There are reports that DEC Tulip based cards (for example from D-Link) are
rock-stable and fast.
I'm going toi give it another try when I have received mine.
I did not suspect the cards at first, as I had had very good experience with
them from the
times when the driver was a separate one called boomerang.
> Is there any argument against this? Should we better buy
> a MacOS machine as server and wait for Rhapsody? Could
> we plan to switch to Rhapsody on the intel machine later?
Waiting is always a safe plan ;)
> What would you do with if you had - say - $30,000 left
> to invest?
It's way too much <grin>
Hannu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:28:15 EST