Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 23:24:41 -0700 From: "Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Cc: Jim Dixon <jdd@vbc.net>, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: news server source for 95/NT Message-ID: <199706060625.XAA26875@MindBender.serv.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:20:00 -0700. <33965A90.2D3F@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hit "next" now if you aren't interested in an NT thread... >Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com wrote: >> While it's true that NT will probably require more memory to get the >> system up and running, and while it's also true that you will probably >> have to buy software (although I'm sure Netscape and others would be >> as happy to sell you a news server as Microsoft would), it's complete >> and utter bull to assert that NT will "fall over" under a full news >> feed. It show's that you simply have no clue what you're talking >> about. In fact, I would bet that you have no experience whatsoever >> doing anything demanding with NT. >Well...I imagine if you use a Compaq Proliant with 512M and lot's of >SCSI disks and so on, even DOS will resist the load. In the real world, >though, the performance of any UNIX will easily beat NT: > http://www.lanquest.com/reports/lotus_notes/sco85a.htm >I don't know NetBSD, but FreeBSD outperforms SCO (especially at high >loads). Hmmm... where do I begin... The test was run on a previous major release of NT (3.5 vs. 4.0). Major performance improvements have been made in that period of time. Microsoft hasn't exactly been standing still on the performance front. They test on 4-processor machines with software that they admit only supports two processors on NT. They use an older version of Lotus Notes, which at that point of time was more of a Unix app recompiled to run on NT than a server product that was written to work comfortably and natively with the way NT works. The 2-processor limit is just one example why (hint: the threading and processor affinity should be totally transparent if the software was written correctly for NT in the first place). Of course, this plays back into my assertion that Exchange kicks Notes' ass. But I understand the value of using a common application on both platforms. However, I think it was quite convenient for the results of this report that Notes of that vintage just wasn't very well written for NT (there are lots of other examples why, but I won't belabor the point here). You need to understand these types of studies are pretty much decided before they are written. They are usually done entirely for the purpose of showing to prospective clients. You can find another study just as slanted that will show an area where NT totally kicks butt. Either way, they're just corporate marketing. All the big companies do it. Which brings us back to SCO (the subject of the article) and Solaris. The assertion that some people have made here about the free BSDs being so much more efficient is, in general, quite true -- there's no denying that. But not just because they're "Unix". SCO and Solaris (and most other commercial Unix products) are bloated pigs, and aren't any faster, on the average, than NT. What makes the free BSDs so efficient is because they hold true to the spirit of the original Unix much more closely than their commercial counterparts. An OS written by and for the people who use it. An OS written by hackers for hackers. A beautiful, clean, elegant, simple, logically well-designed OS, unencumbered by marketing departments or user-feedback studies. It doesn't try to be every thing for every body. And, it expects you to accomodate it from time to time, not the other way around. You gotta love an OS that makes no appologies. :-) I've been labled an "NT-enthusiast". Think of me more as a devil's advocate. I'm just as much a BSD enthusiast as an NT enthusiast. And if someone in an NT forum said something stupid about FreeBSD or NetBSD, I would point out the errors just as candidly (and have done so many times in the past). I simply think it's dangerous to go around gloating about something based on a falsehood (only FreeBSD can support big news servers 'cause NT would just fall right over). And even though I try to be candid, I about NT, Unix, and the BSDs, if you say something stupid about Exchange Server I'll kick your ass, cause that's my baby, and I firmly believe it's the "most powerful messaging platform on the planet". :-) But to put this thing to rest: yes, FreeBSD and/or NetBSD running INN still make about the best news server you can get for an ISP or any other Unix-savvy site. The software is mature, and very well understood. The BSDs are very efficient and resource-friendly, and of course, they're free. However, there are other NNTP packages out there that are very capable of handling a full feed. Exchange Server 5.0 is one of them, and it does it pretty damn well for the very first release of an NNTP server (i. e. the previous version had no NNTP connectivity). Balancing the fact that it may not be quite as fast as Free/NetBSD + INN on a well-tuned box, it is infinitely easier to configure and maintain. In addition to Exchange, Netscape and Lotus would also be happy to sell you news servers that aren't INN, and that run on NT. Of course, they all cost real money. Geeze... I'm getting almost as windy as Terry Lambert... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@MindBender.serv.net --< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >-- NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3, Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32... NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706060625.XAA26875>