Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
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 people install apache on windows when they already have personal web server running ;-) Well, PWS isn't part of the operating system. (Let's not talk about MSIE in this context.) Compare it, maybe, to NFS under Unix which is sometimes in the kernel -- why run usermode NFS ported from somewhere else if the kernel speaks it already? Cheers, philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* 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 SMB implementation so that logs, config, etc. are in the same format * SAMBA offers functionality beyond that of the windows implementation, for instance i remember noting that you could link a shared ``printer'' definition to an executable, i added a little bit of hacking, a poor ps2html convertor and a webserver and i had a nice little document storage/archiving system, that people could simply print to * bugs/security holes may not be solved as quickly in MS's version * i may be an open source zealot and want to know what is running on my machine down to each line of code (shame about the rest of the OS on this point) * its my computer and i should be able to run what software/services i want and not be locked in 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 people install apache on windows when they already have personal web server running ;-) Sounds a bit like How can I port MKS's korn shell to Unix? Is it possible?. Well, maybe the analogy is not so hot, but it's the best I can think of. but if you have the source and some time you can, and you may do it for similar reasons to the ones i stated above Greg -- Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
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 general crapnesses but I've not seen any evidence that it (or NT 4 for that matter) crashed more than Unix. There appear to be near infinite numbers of people who will testify that they worked in some huge IT place and all the NT servers were rebooted daily and all the nix machines had been running since 1988 with no reboots. There are just as many people who will say that they worked in similar environments where both systems hardly ever needed to be rebooted. I've known banks (GS) where solaris machines were rebooted daily or weekly. As for my very limited experience, neither Solaris nor NT crash during normal use as server platforms. I've known NT screw up during some hardware installs and some application installs. But then I've known Solaris do the same for some application installs. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* 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 end. It may have all sorts of scalability issues and general crapnesses but I've not seen any evidence that it (or NT 4 for that matter) crashed more than Unix. There appear to be near infinite numbers of people who will testify that they worked in some huge IT place and all the NT servers were rebooted daily and all the nix machines had been running since 1988 with no reboots. There are just as many people who will say that they worked in similar environments where both systems hardly ever needed to be rebooted. I've known banks (GS) where solaris machines were rebooted daily or weekly. As for my very limited experience, neither Solaris nor NT crash during normal use as server platforms. I've known NT screw up during some hardware installs and some application installs. But then I've known Solaris do the same for some application installs. Well here are some reasons why i prefer UNIX to Windows * for servers, they are pretty much personal reasons and i'm sure not everyone agrees with them. * 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. While its possible (at least it was) to configure NT not to have a GUI, the whole toolset is designed to have a GUI and GUI tools available. So with Windows you are pretty much stuck with it, with UNIX, X isn't tightly integrated into the OS. * Mature Server Software Windows leads the world in desktop software, however it doesn't have as much mature server side software, and i'm not just talking about server processes, i'm thinking about Cron, Procmail, Perl, etc. The software that you use to administer and carry out processing with is just as important on a server as your httpd. Windows simply doesn't have as much mature software available on it, and when software is ported from UNIX it often suffers in functionality (e.g. Perl and fork). * There is only one Windows Imagine if every car manufacturor decided to use acme car alarm 2000, car thieves would love it. They'd get a simple acme car alarm disabler kit and off they'd go. This is what is starting to happen with Windows and it will continue to happen. I don't want to be as easy to hack as every other machine on the planet and be part of that great big red bullseye. When the Internet Worm came about it was possible due to there being 2 major types of system mostly configured in the same way, I think we'll see another worm soon but it will attack 2 or 3 types of windows. * MSDN I'd love to read more about Win 32 programming, and the best source is MSDN but it costs too much! Why for once can't they do the right thing and let this information be available to all. Ok, I've just checked and it appears that more information is now available on the web for free, but it wasn't like this a while ago. * DLLs Trust me I'm know what I'm doing - a windows install process changing your DLLs for you. 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. * Red Box vs. Blue Box I want the servers to look different from the desktops, I don't want the head accountant telling the CEO that his son is a wiz on windows and he can go and tweak our server for us. I don't want the requisitions officer to purchase from the same supplier of desktop hardware for server hardware. I just want them to be different. * MS Windows running MS IIS and MS Exchange using MS I do not believe that MS can be the best programmers of ... operating systems databases internet servers mail servers They are good at company structure, but surely they cannot position there company to be the best at everything on a level playing field. And thats just it, its not a level playing field, superior software will be hindered by the secret APIs, etc. And some pieces of software just wont be able to be plugged in - why can't i run Samba on Windows? Can I? I don't know but I doubt it will be easy. * SSH connecting through a cli interface from a remote location where you have limited bandwidth is much better than using a gui remote control tool. and because of windows GUI focus (see earlier GUI point) it simply will never support remote CLI connections as well. * No compiler Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if i want to write some little program for myself I can do
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* 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 control programs. If you change a dll that's needed and the replacement dll doesn't work then the change gets tagged as a failure and rolled back by the system. It seems to work reasonably well, we've had no major dll screw ups. how is this implemented? at filesystem level, i.e. spotting changes of files or via special install programs? will it work if some lunatic simple copies (or retores) a backup over the DLLs actually now that i mention it, time to mention the fact that although windows has a lot of software very little of it supports any concept of filesystems permission that has only been available since NT came about * No compiler Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if i want to write some little program for myself I can do it there and then. Its not that much to ask, it would just mean that when you get a fresh windows box you dont have to go and waste time installing additional software, and there are other examples of this ... (You said this is about servers) Compilers on servers are a bad idea both from the security perspective and from a stability angle. I don't care how good a coder you are, your not writing code on the server. In a real production environment you need to test it and do change control. I have an issue with this since i got a phone call at 3am this morning after someone did just this. I only leave an interpreter on servers for my own convenience and even then i shouldn't. Of course if your server runs an interpreted language then yes you need it :) thats fine, but what should i do the development on? maybe it should at least be an option in the install process, and i don't mean an option asking Would you like Windows to grab your Credit Card number and order yet another expensive M$ product for you? It will be know trouble we can send the order when we connect to log other information about you and your installed software. Editor Wordpad :) calling wordpad an editor is as laughable as calling vi an editor ;-) Cron The at command or the task scheduler. fine, how do you run something everyday at 3am? -- Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* 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 comes the inevitable end[1] to all unix geek discussions...
struan
[1] or at least end to the bit not based on flames and blind prejudice
:)
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
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 been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ?
and thus comes the inevitable end[1] to all unix geek discussions...
struan
[1] or at least end to the bit not based on flames and blind prejudice
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 ( or one of his followers, or perhaps
someone just mistranslated it .. or made it up ) however ... if anyone
questions me I shall explain that 'thats what faith is all about' and mark
them up for burning as well ...
--
Robin Szemeti
Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* 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 ( or one of his followers, or perhaps someone just mistranslated it .. or made it up ) however ... if anyone questions me I shall explain that 'thats what faith is all about' and mark them up for burning as well ... in future years this may be marked down as the dawning of the second dark age. struan
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
* 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 been using [x{0,1]]emacs again ... ?
and thus comes the inevitable end[1] to all unix geek discussions...
No, we haven't taught the discussion to send mail yet.
--
Greg McCarrollhttp://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
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 Windows. So if you have Windows, you've already got an SMB client and server running. Sounds a bit like How can I port MKS's korn shell to Unix? Is it possible?. Well, maybe the analogy is not so hot, but it's the best I can think of. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: Religion (was Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
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 huge numbers of people think it's neat to run the GL screen saver using 100% CPU, disabling interrupts so much the system clock drifts by ~10min/hour While its possible (at least it was) to configure NT not to have a GUI, the whole toolset is designed to have a GUI and GUI tools available. So with Windows you are pretty much stuck with it, with UNIX, X isn't tightly integrated into the OS. Remote text-based access ... without additional software. * Mature Server Software Windows leads the world in desktop software, however it doesn't have as much mature server side software, and i'm not just talking about server processes, i'm thinking about Cron, Procmail, Perl, etc. And what there is, is integrated with the o/s (also applies to GUI): if the service goes AWOL it takes out the whole O/S. * No compiler Why can't there be a compiler? Please just a simple one, so that if i want to write some little program for myself I can do it there and then. Its not that much to ask, it would just mean that when you get ActiveState Perl lets you do all the damage you need shurely :-) a fresh windows box you dont have to go and waste time installing additional software, and there are other examples of this ... VNC vi.exe/emacs.exe bash.exe Win/SSH Anti-virus s/ware Intrusion Detection s/ware Lynx Editor Scripting language Cron * Final reason (for now) I don't trust them. Amen -- Chris Benson
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 some hard evidence and some convincing facts. Building Large Scale e-Commerce Systems? http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/00/09/07/1758230.shtml might have some stuff and I'm sure there was something about terabyte database solutions one time Linux Databases with Huge Tables? http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/99/09/29/0520201.shtml RAID Solutions For Terrabyte Databases? http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/01/11/2243216.shtml might also have some useful links -- simon wistowwireless systems coder i think, i said i think this is our fault.
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 12:20:53 +0400 (MSD) From: Oleg Broytmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Insurer considers Microsoft NT high-risk [...] An insurance company has started to charge 5-15% more if you use Windows NT as a base for Internet services: We saw that our NT-based clients were having more downtime due to hacking, says John Wurzler, founder and CEO of the Michigan company, which has been selling hacker insurance since 1998. Wurzler said the decision to charge higher premiums was not mandated by the syndicates affiliated with Lloyd's of London that underwrite the insurance he sells. Instead, the move was based on findings from 400 security assessments that his firm has done on small and midsize businesses over the past three years. Wurzler found that system administrators working on open-source systems tend to be better trained and stay with their employers longer than those at firms using Windows software, where turnover can exceed 33 percent per year. http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2766045,00.html Oleg Broytmann http://phd.pp.ru/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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. Anyway, it would be the excuse some are looking for to dump Perl/Apache and move to ASP/IIS/ColdFusion. Might see you at the pub tonight and do a proper introduction. Cheers. Ian _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: Big Shiny Toys (was: Re: M$ SQueaLServer)
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 64 processors in total. It also has a cap of 64 GB ram. *Sorry, but I have no experience of SQL server worth mentioning, just *Oracle. Although the starfire had 6Gb of RAM in the place I used to *work at, it still ran like treacle. But I'm no DBA, so there's probably *a very good reason for it doing this. Yeah, probably someone was a cheap bastard after buying the E10k. One of the major US broadcasting companies used to run their website on a couple of U2s with 512mb ram and a NFS mounted filesystem with Oracle..and let us not forget them using FrontPage for collaborative design. Buying fast hardware is only one part of the solution. If the E10k was slow it was most certainly due to bad system operation desgin and a human who didn't connect the dots and follow the slow I/O. *[1] The ultrasparc was still stuck at 400Mhz last I looked... Look again. The UltraSparc-III is at 750Mhz and up. e.
M$ SQueaLServer
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 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 as it sounds. My gut reaction is that it's still too warm in hell to consider this, but maybe I'm just showing my diehard support for *nix, and my desire to see the demise of the Evil Empire. Any tales of first-hand experience (or old wive's tales) would be appreciated. Ian _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 as it sounds. Ho ho .. Ian, April fools day was ages ago ... I didn't even reallise you could get NT for serious mips .. I though it only ran on likkle PC things ... -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 trying to find out if it's as ludicrous as it sounds. Ho ho .. Ian, April fools day was ages ago ... 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 ... Yeah, I know this sounds crazy, but unfortunately the coding world is occasionally inhabited by the unwashed (or should that be brainwashed?). We have a strong (ie vocal) VB development team (sorry for swearing on this list; time to repent: pony pony pony buffy buffy buffy willow willow willow), who are advising how to proceed. We also have a new head of IT who is likely to support the move because it's the same system that I have on my desktop. No one seems to have drawn the connection with its place on the desktop and its inability to do anything beyond (and including) the desktop. The chief advisor raves about the power, flexibility and price of SQueaLServer19100 being more than a match for Oracle 8i/9i. What I'm trying to find is industry evidence of SQueaL's performance (or lack of). The more gory the details the better. Our VB guru exclaims the ease with which a major New Zealand bank rolled out SQueaL on (what I can presume to be a truck load of) NT servers without a hitch. He's a nice guy, but he's living in La-la-land if he thinks the throughput of a Kiwi bank matches that of an international telco. So far the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the *nix DBA people have been ignored. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of mind set? Any advice (apart from becoming a US postal worker...) If it goes through, this is one coder that will be seeking alternate employment (along with the rest of the company). Ian _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 Software...http://www.iterative-software.com/ ... Hmm... How *did* they finally kill Frosty?
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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, aaa aaahh ahhh chhoou! -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ Iterative Software...http://www.iterative-software.com/ ... And he disappeared in a puff of logic
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 the terabyte level, which is what we're dealing with. Ian ... Hmm... How *did* they finally kill Frosty? Global warming? _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 that have been up running fo , literally years. I have worked on NT boxes that have worn out hteir power buttons, nuff said. The chief advisor raves about the power, flexibility and price of SQueaLServer19100 being more than a match for Oracle 8i/9i. obviously clueballs. I haven't run large dbs on NT .. I did for a while run a terrabyte or so of data from a NT machine and some fibrechannel switches, and fibrechannel raid arrays ... the words 'flakey' and 'blue screened again' come to mind ... it would blue screen arouand twice a month and just plain slow up to a crawl around once a week ... What I'm trying to find is industry evidence of SQueaL's performance (or lack of). The more gory the details the better. Our VB guru exclaims the ease with which a major New Zealand bank rolled out SQueaL on (what I can presume to be a truck load of) NT servers without a hitch. He's a nice guy, but he's living in La-la-land if he thinks the throughput of a Kiwi bank matches that of an international telco. Leons links to TPC are ace .. thats amazing .. the best NT powered thing is at a piss poor 1700 ... presumably NT doesnt scale well to a 128 processor UltraSparc then ;))) So far the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the *nix DBA people have been ignored. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of mind set? Any advice (apart from becoming a US postal worker...) hmm .. well .. depends on how much you need the job ... I quit trying to save idiots from themselves years ago ... tell em .. then tell em what you told em .. then tell em again .. if they still don;t get it then fsck em. they're clueballs. let em implement it and enjoy the laughter. -- Robin Szemeti Redpoint Consulting Limited Real Solutions For A Virtual World
Re: M$ SQueaLServer
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 http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com/default.asp is absolutely fekkin' enormous but is read-only. Consult http://www.oracle.com/ for a near-infinite, and often plausible sounding collection of propaganda. And of course there's Oracle's Million Dollar Challenge wherein they'll hand out $1m if they can't get your MS/DB2/BEA site running at least 3x faster: http://www.oracle.com/guarantee/ Ballsy, to say the least. 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. Whether that costs the company less than hiring a useful Oracle DBA is another matter... Paul -- Change specifics to ambiguities
