Re: NT server, pro/con

In article <D4668H.H9K_at_world.std.com>, shf_at_world.std.com (Stephen H Fick) says:
>
>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?

Well....NT 3.1 was a real dog. Though just about everything ran, it didn't run "cleanly" or efficiently. We had a ton of problems interfacing with third-party products running on different platforms and it crashed/hung on a pretty regular basis.

However....NT 3.5 has been a dream. It took about 20 minutes to install. Maybe another couple of hours to set up all of the networking, gateways and servers and it's been running pretty well ever since. No crashes or hangups to date. I've been running SQL server on it and the performance is pretty good. I'm just starting to investigate running a Progress server on it. I'm not even sure that Progress has an NT-based server out yet. So far I've been using a 6.3 server under Unix SVR4, the SQL Server on NT and a WFW/Winsock client running some custom reports and programs for testing.

If you have any specific question or if you'ld just like to keep in touch to see how it all turns out, drop me an Email.

John Benfield
Systems Specialist
AT&T International (IAFS)
jbenfield_at_attmail.att.com Received on Thu Mar 09 1995 - 16:08:47 CET