Re: NT server, pro/con
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 17:56:29 GMT
Message-ID: <3iavp8$7g1_at_news1.best.com>
shf_at_world.std.com (Stephen H Fick) wrote:
>While working on an assignment to choose a database product,
>I've just been asked to look into using an NT server
>rather than a Sun Solaris 2.x server.
>
>I'm interested in hearing people's evaluation of the merits
>and demerits of an NT server in a server/client RDB
>environment. Speed, reliability, security, expandability,
>ease of learning the system administration work, ease of
>performing it--talking here about the NT side of things,
>not the RDB side--are obvious areas of concern. Are there
>others? How does NT stack up, to date?
>
>As you may have deduced, I have plenty of Unix experience,
>none with NT.
>
>Will be glad to post a summary, or to forward to individual
>responders.
>
>Tia,
>Steve
NT Server v3.5 is simply, in my experience (PC network solutions only) the _best_ netork operating system currently available. It is _very_ easy to administer, unlike the only other real heavyweight contender - NetWare 4.1. It is as reliable as they come. I have had _zero_ server crashes on a minimally configured system. I have had several apps lockup (because of my stupidity - every one of them), but that has never lock up the whole system. On the other hand, NetWare 4.x (prior to 4.1) has given me consistent lockups. I am still awaiting my promised copy of 4.1, so things may get rosier on that side (I hope!). Alas, I have never had oportunity to use an NT Server as a database server, so I dunno how it would perform in comparison to some other solutions...
Andrew Fittro
Computer Consultant
ARK Systems Software (408) 986-1850 -or- (415) 328-2533
InterNet Email Address: afittro_at_perpetual.com World Wide Web Home Page: http://www.perpetual.com/ Anonymous FTP: ftp.best.com/pub/afittro Received on Mon Feb 20 1995 - 18:56:29 CET