Subject: Re: netatalk in production environments....(Netware and Stuff...)
From: Luke McNeilage (lmn@d2p.com.au)
Date: Wed Jun 07 2000 - 22:19:45 EDT
> This is something that I have found to be correct as well, at least in small
> benchmarks involving up to 5 clients. We had a shoot-out at one point
> between ASIP, linux+netatalk, Win NT and Netware. They ended up, in
> declining speeds, in the above order (over 10base-T).
>
The true issue here is IP. Windows NT is not IP, neither is NetWare (I
assume this by the results.) Try turning off TCP/IP on the Macintoshes and
compare how each system goes on just AppleTalk. That is not to say I support
WINdozz, but with the introduction of 2000, they have IP support for ASIP.
If you wish IP support under NT, you have to get a program called
MacServerIP7, from Cyan Software wwww.cyansoftware.com.
Obviously with ASIP 6.2, especially when run on a G4, (the worlds fastest
desktop workstation), the answer is daahhhh. But the point is the difference
in price.
That makes the rest of this test a bit incredulous.
> ASIP was surprisingly the fastest of the bunch, followed by netatalk.
> Windows NT was factor of 2x slower, and we interrupted the Netware benchmark
> when it was 10x slower, and there was no end in sight (a combination of
> large and smaller files was sent, from a 600+ mb folder).
>
> My concern has always been the system scaling to support large numbers of
> stations, but if you are dealing with 500+ clients, then that appears to be
> less of an issue.
>
> Nevertheless, I believe that your comments regarding the death of netatalk
> are both premature, if not unfair. While netatalk has very much been
> languishing for years with no significant enhancements to version
> 1.33/1.42b, asun has done a marvelous job resurrecting it, and turning it
> into a very effective, and very capable tool - and juggling to implement as
> much of the specs (including taking into consideration real-world issues) as
> he can.
>
> While you are correct that Adrian has a day-job, he works for a vendor that
> provides, amongst other, servers with netatalk capabilities (*) - hence,
> there is a reason for him to keep enhancing netatalk, and hopefully such
> enhancements will be shared with the public version. It is, after all, in
> Cobalt's best interest to provide a better netatalk - unless they subscribe
> to the Netware/Novell mentality of marginalizing the Mac platform...
>
> Anyway, good comments, and a good thread overall.
>
> Harry
>
>
> (*) Which brings me to a question I asked earlier that has gone unanswered:
> Are there any improvements in the netatalk that ships with Cobalt boxes, and
> does anyone know?
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 14:30:59 EST