Subject: [netatalk-admins] netatalk vs. commercial products
From: Sean A. Snyder (ssnyder@cecom.com)
Date: Fri Mar 06 1998 - 18:21:33 EST
Greetings!
I've been lurking on the list here for a while, and figured that I'd
finally post.... Hopefully this posting won't start a flamewar...
I'm really curious to hear about people's experiences with netatalk
in a 300+ user "mission-critical" commercial/production near-24x7
environment. I'm also wondering what experiences people have had
with various commercial products that do roughly the same thing as
netatalk.
In reading the netatalk web page, I was slightly disheartened to
read the following in regards to the pending release of 1.4b3:
"The solaris kernel module is rewritten, eliminating many routing
problems and kernel panics."
Can anyone shed any light on the kernel panic problem with Solaris
and version 1.4b2? How serious is it, etc?
FYI:
At present, I'm using Information Presentation
Technologies' (www.iptech.com) "uShare" product to share files
from my 3 Sun Sparc1000E servers to about 150 macs/server. Each of
these servers has 50-70 gig of disk hung off of them. Version
4.1f of their product worked just find under Solaris 2.5.1. For
a variety of reasons, I needed to upgrade to Solaris 2.6, which
in-turn forced me to upgrade to uShare 5.0, which is the biggest
P.O.S. i've ever seen. It has crashed one of my servers at LEAST once
a day for the past week.
Also, I'm using Samba to share these files to our few
PCs, and it is the coolest thing since sliced bread. We are, however,
running into issues with the PCs not knowing the file-type/creator
information due to their reliance on *.doc style extensions.
I've spent some time evaluating Syntax's TotalNet Advanced Server,
which allows me to share the same files to both Macs and PCs. I
liked the web-based admin interface it has (allows me to offload
some of my responsibility on the junior admins), but I'm just
not happy with their support (or lack thereof), nor an I happy
with all of the orphan processes it creates. This is especially
problematic these orphans are considered "active connections", and
the product refuses logins when you have exceeded your licensed
number of connections. Plus, it's REALLY REALLY REALLY 'spensive,
IMHO.
Thanks in advance!
Sean
-- ___________________________________________ Sean A. Snyder (ssnyder@cecom.com) \ Strange but not a stranger Systems Administrator \ I'm an ordinary guy... Campbell-Ewald Advertising/C-E Communications\_________________________ ***** All opinions are mine and mine only ... yadda yadda yadda *****
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:31:21 EST