Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!sysc.salford.ac.uk!R.J.Letts From: R.J.Letts@sysc.salford.ac.uk Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: LAN MANAGER Questions. Message-ID: <31.May.91.16:46:40.A1018B@UK.AC.SALF.C> Date: 31 May 91 15:46:40 GMT References: Sender: rwh@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 121 #> I'm curious. The original poster on this claimed that PCSA and PC/NFS #> aren't "True LAN" implementations. #1. Fileserver efficiency. # Use of PC-NFS on a non-dedicated server is asking for trouble; a heavy #user of the system will cause DOS clients to time-out producing error messages #on the clients - not very good. > Good grief, what are you using as a server? I can run for days at a time > accessing a system that is serving dozens of Suns and PC and is also > running OpenLook (talk about a cycle stealer) without any significant level > of retransmissions. Furthermore if it's really a problem you can always > configure the number of retries before an error is reported - setting it to > 0 (infinite) means I can rebuild all of PC-NFS overnight and not worry > if somebody takes down the server for backup. A SUN3/180 was being used as the server [not in my department]; I belive it was the fastest machine SUN made at the time. Ok, you can set retries to infinity, but that is ok for running overnight. In a LAB environment locking a PC up does not go down very well. #3. Security #Novell offers you a much richer access rights scheme than NFS - #Read #write #Create [New files/directories] #Open [existing files] #Search [directories] #Execute-Only > ???? How is this different from and Unix server??? on unix you cannot set execute-only on a file to prvent the undergraduates from ripping the software off [this prevents 'ordinary' reading of the file] You cannot create a file to which users can only append, not overwrite > Most people regard the statelessness as a rather useful attribute, OK, statelessness is not really an issue, but machine reliablity is # 5. Price/Performance #compare the cost of a pc-based fileserver with the cost of a PC-NFS or #PCSA fileserver. > Hmmm. I'll bite. Here's a sample configuration for a server > and software for 10 client PC's: who builds networks this small ? for this sort of configuration I'd probably go for LAN MANAGER, but I have the prices for pre-installed server configuations to hand for NetWare 3.11 > SPARCstation SLC 4/20FM-8 $4,995 > File server option X2001Z $9,600 > SunOS on CD-ROM SX-21 $ 300 > PC-NFS Documentation $ 75 > PC-NFS RTU, no doc at 5-24 discount $ 245 x 10 = $2,450 > > Total:$17 420 for a 100 station network this works out at $39,470 > I could get it cheaper using a 486 clone with a clone SVR4, but > performance would probably be inadequate. Can someone give me the > equivalent for a name-brand NetWare server system. Don't forget to > include all software, the mouse, tape, CD, etc. why a mouse and CD? just because the SUN needs tham a fileserver doesn't. why brand-named? Elonex Fileserver [we have eight of these, one running for almost 3 years] - 1GB disk, - 16MB memory, - 20 user Netware 386 3.11 [installed & ready to go] - display, mouse [who needs a mouse on a server ?] - documentation - 3 1/2" disk drive - 32-bit EISA ethernet adapter - 128kbyte cache - 80486/33Mhz processor $12 496 Backup system $ 4 000 [a guess at this as I don't have prices to hand, probably far too high] total $16 500 ============= ie comparable to the system above however for more users: If I want to support 100 users the total is (approx) $18 500 250 users the total is (approx) $24 500 > The problem here is the confusion and manageability of maintaining > multiple name spaces, administration spaces, routing structures, etc. > Suppose (hypothetically) that I run NetWare on my PC for file access > and TCP-based stuff for the rest. Oops - we use Unix boxes as routers, > and they won't route IPX, so now I'm limited to my local LAN for file > sharing. What's my PC's name? Is it the same in the TCP/IP and NetWare > worlds? There's a printer on another PC I want to use, which name > should I use? Which stack? Management wants to manage the net with > SNMP. How does NetWare fit in here? And so on. You use IPX-IP encapulation, the workstation encapulates the IPX in IP and sends it through the network. [Lan workplace for DOS] If you don't want to fork out more money for LAN workplace for DOS use the local fileserver to encapsulate the IPX in IP for you Alternatively you reverse the network structure and use NW3.11 fileservers as the IP and IPX routers. Netware does not 'name' the PC's instead it uses the MAC address, and 'connection' number to identify them so name management is not a problem in the NetWare domain... The printer is not such a 'heavy' problem. Without a complete map of your network it would be impossible for me to 'guess' at how you would want to arrange the printers so here are the components : Novell's NFS support includes LPD NW3.xx PrintServer allows printing to pc's attached to workstations. Assuming you already have printers attached to PC's you carry on using them in the same manner. Novell's NFS includes a LPD to service printers. Novell include a SNMP agent with the TCP/IP support in NW3.11 > -- Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Microsystems. (geoff@East.Sun.COM) -- Richard Letts Network Manager University of Salford Great Britain