No more Unix X NT [Re: ADSM Bottleneck]

>sounds like more Microsoft brain washing.
>do we need an intervention here???

Not necessary. This list shouldn't discuss NT x Unix issues. There are
other lists for this purpose.

best regards,
Rodrigo

>Rodrigo Cordovil Gazzaneo <rgazzaneo AT INFOLINK.COM DOT BR> on 08/23/99 04
>Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>cc: (bcc: Don Caronna/Los Angeles/Ttank)
>Subject: Re: ADSM Bottleneck
>I disagree, Mark. What is the Internet without Unix ? Heve you heard about
>Linux ?
>I suggest you visited this site :
><a href=http://www.unix-vs-nt.org target="new">http://www.unix-vs-nt.org</
>This discussion may get far from the list focus ... sorry everyone.
>FACT : IBM suggests Unix solutions for ADSM sites as the get bigger so tha
>NT boxes wouldn't be able to handle it. IBM doubts NT's scalability, check
>the earlier message from Joshua about adding processors to NT systems.
>But NT does have its share on the midrange market. But it has never been
>able to grow beyond it. And it is another fact.
>best regards,
>Rodrigo
>>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 hardw
>>capability of mid-range Intel Servers, they are not down on unix boxes
>>can have SSA disks on Intel. You can have SMP, multiple I/O buses and
>>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
>>whole lot of devices, and if you need more resources, just "open" anot
>>file, for devices, memory, paging, etc.
>>NT has serious problems of scalability. Memory management isn't as goo
>>often leave leaks. That's one reason why you have to reboot it more of
>>Have you heard of the 49-day patch ? Microsoft launched a patch for NT
>>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 L
>>is at least twice faster than on NT ? Surely not because of the hardwa
>>....
>>best regards,
>>Rodrigo
>>>AIX, and UNIX in general, will beat NT simply because of the hardw
>>>The midrange and larger (and even some smaller) UNIX machines will
>>>multiple PCI busses. But the biggest speed-up (beyond CPU speed an
>>>RAM) is SSA for the disk.
>>>Steffan
>>>"Louie, James" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We had an NT ADSM server, then we moved to an AIX server when
>>>> steam. We had a 2 CPU Compaq Proliant 6500, dual 100Mb Ethern
>>>> 640MB RAM and lots of disk backing up close to 100 NT server
>>>> When it was in operation, I saw that it used lots of CPU and
>>>> memory. IBM said that the NT server did not scale well past 2
>>>> don't waste any money there. This was attached to a STK9710 w
>>>> drives. We had 3 SCSI cards in the server attaching to the DL
>>>> bottlenecks will be your network and I/O (disk and tape). Spe
>>>> you can. We eventually went with an AIX server because the In
>>>> we were using just could not go any faster. We're seeing at l
>>>> performance now. (I'm not saying that you should look at AIX
>>>> suit you perfectly.)
>>>>
>>>> James Louie
>>>> Nabisco
>>>>
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Jordan, Chris (ELS) [mailto:c.jordan AT ELSEVIER DOT CO.U
>>>> > 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 consist
>>>> >
>>>> > 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 b
>>>> > 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
>>>> > Intel platform.
>>>> > We are interested in opinions of what are the main
>>>> > bottlenecks for ADSM
>>>> > performance. For instance, would adding multiple process
>>>> > performance (especially ADSM DB) or is memory more impor
>>>> > Thanks in
>>>> > advance.
>>>> > Seth Forgosh
>>>> >
>----------------------------------
>Thank You,
>Don Caronna
>Think Tank Systems, LLC
>IBM CATE/ADSM Certified Technician/Solutions Provider
>Office: (562) 653-2520
>Fax: (562) 653-2560
>dcaronna AT ttank DOT com
>www.ttank.com