Re: Samba admin vs. Windows admin
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Marist EDU wrote: For better or worse, here are my thoughts on your question: I would say a competant administrator of either OS/Software could make them run efficiently, plus it depends on what you are using them for. There are 4 things that come to my mind in reference to pure File Servers. Stability, File Access, Permissions and Price. In the following when I reference Linux I mean the Linux/Samba combo. WRT Stability: The M$ OS can't handle long periods of uptime without eventually puking on itself. The Linux OS is of course much more stable and requires less reboots (if any). So in this case Linux appears to have the advantage, however a competant M$ admin would/should schedule atleast a bi-weekly reboot of the server in off-hours. For better, for worse, Windows 2003 us currently unproven. I have Windows Sever 2003 Enterprise Edition sitting on my desk waiting for me to find A 500 Mhz CPU and 256 Mbytes of RAM with which to try it. It sounds like a lot of computer to me, but then I don't know what workload the package is supposed to be able to handle. WRT Price: Duh, (haha) Do more with less machine Linux is the obvious winner here. Price is a little simplistic. There's more to cost than price: not that I think the extra factors favour Windows, but this package I have in front of me may contain surprises. So I guess what I'm saying is it depends on how often you need to change your file ACL's and how complex they are to begin with and how good your system admin is. In a simple environment the manpower is comperable (IMHO). I know I might get some flack about all the security patches required on M$, but there are tools out there for installing them automatically and during off-hours (again something a compentant administrator should be aware of). Would you want to apply patches automatically? Maybe you mean something different from what I think you do, but I don't want patches applied at odd times on any computer I manage. I much prefer the idea of testing it, evaluating it, maybe applying it, and most importantly, knowing that it's applied so I know what to blame when things break. -- Cheers John. Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
Re: Samba admin vs. Windows admin
I ran Samba on a UnixWare system for a couple of years. It took nearly zero effort. We also had several Windows/NT servers that required constant reboot, upgrades, etc. I would have to say that Windows in nearly infinitely more work. I have not really quantified it, but it seems that around 12 servers they became a full time job. The department actually hired someone about that time. I should probably mention that these servers supported two or three applications, and about 6 telephone support staff. I know that sounds like a lot of servers for this function, but we did handle a lot of data, and some of those servers were part of a cluster. On the other hand, it does seem like you need more Windows servers for any application than one would think you need. -Original Message- From: Lionel Dyck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Samba admin vs. Windows admin Has anyone quantified the manpower required to administer a samba file server compared to a windows server? More manpower? Less? Comparable? Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck
Re: Samba admin vs. Windows admin
On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 10:59, Lionel Dyck wrote: Has anyone quantified the manpower required to administer a samba file server compared to a windows server? More manpower? Less? Comparable? Well, *I* find it's a lot less, but then I really much prefer CLIs and OSes that aren't constantly barfing BSODs at me. I don't know what there are in terms of studies, but there's almost certainly something out there saying A reasonable load for Unix sysadmins is X machines; for Windows, Y machines; that ought to be pretty close to an apples-to-apples comparison. Adam
Re: Samba admin vs. Windows admin
Lionel, If you ignore the system reliability question (which to me is the _big_ question), I would have to say that administering a file server is going to depend mostly on how dynamic the environment is. I just had a conversation the other day with someone who told me that the biggest amount of time spent administering a Windows file server was updating permissions. Who gets access to what today. Who gets access to that tomorrow is different, and oh by the way, so-and-so left the group, so take them out, ad nauseum. I don't know if there are any good comparisons of the tools available to do that on Windows versus Linux. I would also say that the amount of time just diddling with the server to keep it running is quite a bit higher on Windows, what with all the preventive reboots, forcing on IIS and IE patches (if you can), etc., etc. Somewhat on topic... I remember going to a Microsoft seminar on Windows 2000, when the MS employees were still struggling to not call it NT 5.0. (The platform was still in beta testing at the time.) The main speaker was talking about how they'd gone around to all the development groups and made them explain why installing their product required that the system be rebooted, and to get them to change how they did things to avoid that. He stated that they'd gotten the number of reasons a system had to be rebooted down to about four or so, and they were working on those as well. Right. Just yesterday (four years later?), I installed Visio Professional on my Windows 2000 Professional desktop (we're all very professional here, you know). It made me reboot to finish the install. For a stinking application. I have to say, though, that I need to come up with a different answer for my wife when she asks why is my computer doing such and such. Lately, when I say because it's Microsoft, she's been threatening to hit me (as opposed to the people that would deserve it. She can reach me). Mark Post -Original Message- From: Lionel Dyck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Samba admin vs. Windows admin Has anyone quantified the manpower required to administer a samba file server compared to a windows server? More manpower? Less? Comparable? Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck
Re: Samba admin vs. Windows admin
This is getting off topic, but I am amused by Microsoft saying that they got the reason for reboots to four. Problem is that one of those reasons is that Windows will not unlink old DLLs until you reboot, so every install that includes a DLL (are there any that don't?) need a reboot. -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Samba admin vs. Windows admin Lionel, If you ignore the system reliability question (which to me is the _big_ question), I would have to say that administering a file server is going to depend mostly on how dynamic the environment is. I just had a conversation the other day with someone who told me that the biggest amount of time spent administering a Windows file server was updating permissions. Who gets access to what today. Who gets access to that tomorrow is different, and oh by the way, so-and-so left the group, so take them out, ad nauseum. I don't know if there are any good comparisons of the tools available to do that on Windows versus Linux. I would also say that the amount of time just diddling with the server to keep it running is quite a bit higher on Windows, what with all the preventive reboots, forcing on IIS and IE patches (if you can), etc., etc. Somewhat on topic... I remember going to a Microsoft seminar on Windows 2000, when the MS employees were still struggling to not call it NT 5.0. (The platform was still in beta testing at the time.) The main speaker was talking about how they'd gone around to all the development groups and made them explain why installing their product required that the system be rebooted, and to get them to change how they did things to avoid that. He stated that they'd gotten the number of reasons a system had to be rebooted down to about four or so, and they were working on those as well. Right. Just yesterday (four years later?), I installed Visio Professional on my Windows 2000 Professional desktop (we're all very professional here, you know). It made me reboot to finish the install. For a stinking application. I have to say, though, that I need to come up with a different answer for my wife when she asks why is my computer doing such and such. Lately, when I say because it's Microsoft, she's been threatening to hit me (as opposed to the people that would deserve it. She can reach me). Mark Post -Original Message- From: Lionel Dyck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Samba admin vs. Windows admin Has anyone quantified the manpower required to administer a samba file server compared to a windows server? More manpower? Less? Comparable? Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck
Re: Samba admin vs. Windows admin
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Adam Thornton wrote: On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 10:59, Lionel Dyck wrote: Has anyone quantified the manpower required to administer a samba file server compared to a windows server? More manpower? Less? Comparable? Well, *I* find it's a lot less, but then I really much prefer CLIs and OSes that aren't constantly barfing BSODs at me. I don't know what there are in terms of studies, but there's almost certainly something out there saying A reasonable load for Unix sysadmins is X machines; for Windows, Y machines; that ought to be pretty close to an apples-to-apples comparison. I was going to comment that Samba is a tiny bit of software in comparison with Windows. Then, I thought, perhaps not. Even when you add in the software you need in order to run Samba, there's still not much there. -- Cheers John. Join the Linux Support by Small Businesses list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
