Tamra R. Heathershaw-Hart wrote:
> >Sun SPARCstation 5 or Sun Ultra 5S server
> >Solaris 2.5 or 2.6 OS
> >Informix Dynamic Server Workgroup Edition or miniSQL
> >Apache Web server
> >Perl/DBI for scripting and database connectivity
Nice, reliable. Sun/OS hasn't gone anywhere in about two years, but it
works and is supported.
> >Cobalt Networks RaQ or Pentium 233
> >Linux OS
> >Apache Web server
> >Lightweight relational database such as mySQL
> >Perl/DBI for scripting and database connectivity
Cheap, effective, low maintenance. Probably more time in building
stages, though.
> >Dual-processor Pentium server
> >Windows NT Server
> >Microsoft SQL Server database
> >Microsoft IIS 4.0 Web server
> >Microsoft ASP as the scripting language
Expensive, now and in future. If sites don't take off, constant
licenses and upgrades will be a burden.
> >Any thoughts on performance, reliability, etc.? I'm biased towards Perl and
> >UNIX, but maybe NT is really what's best now for the client (my sense is
> >that ASP offers better performance than Perl).
I have yet to encounter an ASP driven site on the web where I didn't
grumble at the performance. I can spot one before the pages even show
up from the characteristic lag you hit. What would give you this sense?
if you're using Apache, mod_perl ought to more than make up for any
perceived performance difference.
>I've heard through the
> >grapevine, though, that NT servers tend to be unstable.
Under heavy loads, yes. I have talked to some people that like them
under light loads (I'm now in my third encounter with the f***** things,
and still hate them, personally). If you think Oracle is going to be
hard to make work right, though, NT servers are full of stupid little
nuances that drive one batty.
As my new tech contractor says: NT works fine if you install nothing
but MS products on it (and don't try to do DNS).
>The price of
> >miniSQL is attractive ($250!), but it doesn't do transactions
> >(commit/rollback). I checked the pricing on Oracle and it was fairly
> >expensive, plus I've heard that Oracle is difficult to install and
> >maintain.
Not overly if you're doing small stuff. If you're doing datawarehousing
it's a pain and requires a professional.
Might want to see what they say about Oracle for Linux in three months
(or leave that option open).
>Another question is when/whether you have to put the relational
> >database on its own dedicated server separate from the machine that's
> >running the Web server software.
Depends. If the databases will be well indexed, and each transaction
isn't running a complete query, it's possible to start on the same
machine. if each web hit is going to generate a complete database
search, you might as well put it on a box of its own from the start.
the real determining factor is the nature of the database, and how well
it's constructed. additionally, i'd be a lot more likely to put a
Unix/linux box to dual purpose like that than NT.
The split also leads to a potential better solution--servers on one OS,
DB on other. You can run your NT server and ASP on one box, and run a
Unix database on the other. Unix power for searches, NT for (alleged)
ease of admin. Or, you can use Unix power for driving web hits, and use
NT for easy database admin (and do good indexing and dumps of static
content from database to reduce load--I bet a 486 with Linux and Apache
could more than keep up with the web traffic it would take to crunch a
dual processor NT box doing repeated DB queries).
B
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
