Greg McCarroll wrote:
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
AFAIK Samba implements the SMB protocol, which is the
native resource (file, printer, ...) sharing protocol of
Windows. So if you have Windows, you've already got an SMB
client and server running.
for the same reasons
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Greg McCarroll wrote on Freitag, 8. Juni 2001 11:11
And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged
in - why can't i run Samba on Windows?
Why would you want to?
* in a heterogeneous network i may want to standardise on a single
At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more
frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact.
I just questioned it. Win2k appears to be a very nice OS, although I've
never used it at the server end. It may have all sorts of scalability
issues and
* Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more
frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact.
I just questioned it. Win2k appears to be a very nice OS, although I've
never used it at the server
* Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There is entirely to much DLL upgrading for my liking at every possible
chance with Windows software/service pack. I don't believe that this can
really lead to a stable system.
Win2k address a lot of these issues with its dll and system file
* at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-)
arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out ..
have you been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ?
and thus
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Struan Donald wrote:
* at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-)
arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out ..
have you
* at 08/06 11:54 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
pah! .. tis written in the scripture ... 'let he who hath one eye be
blessed' .. clearly the 'one eye' is a reference to the one 'i' in vi ..
its *obvious* innit ... I shall found my entire religion on this shadowy
fact wriiten by our lord himself
* Struan Donald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* at 08/06 11:35 +0100 Robin Szemeti said:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-)
arrghh .. burn the heretic! ... speak brother, for the truth will out ..
have you
Greg McCarroll wrote on Freitag, 8. Juni 2001 11:11
And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged
in - why can't i run Samba on Windows?
Why would you want to? AFAIK Samba implements the SMB protocol, which is the
native resource (file, printer, ...) sharing protocol of
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 10:11:13AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
* GUI
I really don't want to have a server running a GUI, it adds at least some
overhead, encourages people to `work on the server' and as its an additional
process may add additional security concerns.
And
Ian Brayshaw wrote:
What I'm trying to find is industry evidence of SQueaL's performance (or
lack of). The more gory the details the better.
It's not unbiased and you have to sift through the cruft but checking
old Ask-Slashdots is often worth doing as the occasional person comes up
with
On or about Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 04:58:11PM -0700, Paul Makepeace typed:
At the end of the day, the simple fact is that Windows 2000 crashes more
frequently than *n[ui]x does -- this surely is unquestioned fact.
Bear in mind also this item from Monday's RISKS (21.44):
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
Hi guys,
Thanks for the input. I'll investigate further, but it has confirmed my
suspicions that SQueaL hasn't made an impact at the terabyte level.
As for the job, it's good, but not the be-all and end-all. I'm too
passionate about what I do to work on systems that I don't believe in.
Dominic Mitchell [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*
*AFAIK, the starfire (Sun Ultra Enterprise 1) only goes up to 64
*processors (I used to work on an under equipped one ;-) The SGI
*challenge does 128 procs, though.
The starfile does, indeed, max out at 16 boards with 4 processors each
making
Hi guys,
Have any of you worked with SQueaLServer with a large DB (multiple terabyte
level), serving high volume transactions (read write, of the order of
millions of records a day). What sort of performance did you get? What was
the hardware? Was it reliable?
I'm working for a telecoms
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
I'm working for a telecoms company that is considering a proposal to move
its billing system from Oracle on Solaris, to SQueaLServer NT. It's a
decision that is coming from management (where else?), and I'm trying to
find out if it's as ludicrous
Robin Szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
I'm working for a telecoms company that is considering a proposal to
move its billing system from Oracle on Solaris, to SQueaLServer NT.
It's a decision that is coming from management (where else?), and I'm
I didn't even reallise you could get NT for serious mips .. I though it
only ran on likkle PC things ...
The transactions world record sadly is held by M$ at the moment.
Red
Redvers Davies sent the following bits through the ether:
The transactions world record sadly is held by M$ at the moment.
http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
Iterative
Ian Brayshaw sent the following bits through the ether:
If it goes through, this is one coder that will be seeking alternate
employment (along with the rest of the company).
It's probably worth letting the company know about this, although
they'll probably ignore it. FUD works, you know...
Leon Brocard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Redvers Davies sent the following bits through the ether:
The transactions world record sadly is held by M$ at the moment.
http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
Yeah, seen that. It's interesting to note that SQueaL doesn't make an
appearance at
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
I didn't even reallise you could get NT for serious mips .. I though it
only ran on likkle PC things ...
I wouldn't have used the word ran ...
I did put something about htat but deleted it .. I leave it in next time.
I have worked on Solaris boxen
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 02:24:35AM +1000, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
Have any of you worked with SQueaLServer with a large DB (multiple terabyte
level), serving high volume transactions (read write, of the order of
You'd have to be more specific than that. MS's terraserver
24 matches
Mail list logo
