Newsgroups: comp.sys.novell
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!acc.flint.umich.edu!jal
From: jal@acc.flint.umich.edu (John Lauro)
Subject: Re: Netware 386 NFS capabilities
Message-ID: <1991May10.124323.16567@engin.umich.edu>
Sender: news@engin.umich.edu (CAEN Netnews)
Organization: University of Michigan - Flint
References: <7500@spdcc.SPDCC.COM>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1991 12:43:23 GMT

In article <7500@spdcc.SPDCC.COM> rbraun@spdcc.COM (Rich Braun) writes:
>In <42116@cup.portal.com> Will@cup.portal.com (Will E Estes) writes:
>>>I'd say a UNIX bigot is someone who would rather spend $80,000 or more
>>>for a Sun server that is out-performed by a less-than-$10,000 '486
>>>machine running NW/386 and NFS.
>
>ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp (Guy Helmer) writes:
>>If you only want file services, NW/386 is great.  I think you've understated
>>the price...
>
>I'll second that.  NetWare is *overpriced*.  We just spent $12.5K a pop
>for NetWare 3.11, *per server*.  We have yet to pay the $5K a pop, *per
>server*, for NFS.  So your comparison here is more like a $30,000 386
>box vs. an $80,000 Sun box.
>
>Let's compare apples and apples, though, with a 386 NFS server:
>
>	The Box		$1,500
>	Memory, 8mb	 1,000
>	Two 330M disks	 2,500
>	 & controller
>	SCO Unix	   600
>	SCO TCP/IP	   450
>	SCO NFS		   400
>			------
>			$6,450

You forgot some other things, such as the network card.
Correct me if I am wrong, but SCO doesn't give you options such as
automatic mirroring and transaction tracking of drives and files.
I would expect the performance of Netware to be many times faster
than SCO.  (Haven't seen any dirrect comparisons, so don't take my
word for it.)  You don't know if you are comparing apples to apples
unless you list all the features and performance of each option.  Why not
just get a 386 with some large hard drives and run some NFS server
software?  Why bother withh SCO at all?  ;-)