Are you still alive??

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Remeta, Mark [SMTP:MRemeta AT SELIGMANDATA DOT COM]
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 2:10 PM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Re: ADSM Bottleneck
>
> yea but who wants to run U-nicks?
> U-nicks is dead, everyone knows that.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rodrigo Cordovil Gazzaneo [mailto:rgazzaneo AT INFOLINK.COM DOT BR]
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 12:03 PM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: ADSM Bottleneck
>
>
> I disagree that the basic difference is hardware. If you see the hardware
> capability of mid-range Intel Servers, they are not down on unix boxes.
> You
> can have SSA disks on Intel. You can have SMP, multiple I/O buses and RAS.
> The problem is the OS itself.
>
> In the small, Unix scales better because of its own architecture that
> defines a file abstraction for anything. Basically, it extends its API to
> a
> whole lot of devices, and if you need more resources, just "open" another
> file, for devices, memory, paging, etc.
>
> NT has serious problems of scalability. Memory management isn't as good
> and
> often leave leaks. That's one reason why you have to reboot it more often.
> Have you heard of the 49-day patch ? Microsoft launched a patch for NT to
> correct a bug : system crash after 49 days of continuous use. Nobody
> had ever complained about it ... ok, silly joke.
>
> And the final point : why is it that Oracle stated that Oracle 8i on Linux
> is at least twice faster than on NT ? Surely not because of the hardware
> ...
>
> best regards,
> Rodrigo
>
> >AIX, and UNIX in general, will beat NT simply because of the hardware.
> >The midrange and larger (and even some smaller) UNIX machines will have
> >multiple PCI busses. But the biggest speed-up (beyond CPU speed and
> >RAM) is SSA for the disk.
> >Steffan
> >"Louie, James" wrote:
> >>
> >> We had an NT ADSM server, then we moved to an AIX server when it ran
> >> steam. We had a 2 CPU Compaq Proliant 6500, dual 100Mb Ethernet cards
> >> 640MB RAM and lots of disk backing up close to 100 NT server clients
> >> When it was in operation, I saw that it used lots of CPU and not much
> >> memory. IBM said that the NT server did not scale well past 2 CPUs, s
> >> don't waste any money there. This was attached to a STK9710 w/10 DLT7
> >> drives. We had 3 SCSI cards in the server attaching to the DLTs. The
> >> bottlenecks will be your network and I/O (disk and tape). Speed those
> >> you can. We eventually went with an AIX server because the Intel plat
> >> we were using just could not go any faster. We're seeing at least 2-3
> >> performance now. (I'm not saying that you should look at AIX now, NT
> >> suit you perfectly.)
> >>
> >> James Louie
> >> Nabisco
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Jordan, Chris (ELS) [mailto:c.jordan AT ELSEVIER.CO DOT UK]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 12:37 PM
> >> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> >> > Subject: Re: ADSM Bottleneck
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We have an NT Intel "building block" server that consists of:
> >> >
> >> > 2 x 400 MHz CPUs
> >> > 512 MB Memory
> >> > 2 x 3 disks (9.1GB) mirrored for Op Sys and database
> >> > 24 disks (9.1GB) for the disk cache.
> >> > Attached to a DLT Tape library - 4 drives and 84 slots.
> >> >
> >> > We haven't fully loaded it yet to need a second building
> >> > block - but it
> >> > seems to be the disk for the database that is going to become
> >> > the bottle
> >> > neck first.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers, Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Forgosh, Seth [mailto:sforgosh AT TIAA-CREF DOT ORG]
> >> > Sent: 19 August 1999 16:37
> >> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> >> > Subject: ADSM Bottleneck
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We are about to spec out a new ADSM server running NT on the
> >> > Intel platform.
> >> > We are interested in opinions of what are the main
> >> > bottlenecks for ADSM
> >> > performance. For instance, would adding multiple processors incr
> >> > performance (especially ADSM DB) or is memory more important.
> >> > Thanks in
> >> > advance.
> >> > Seth Forgosh
> >> >