Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:22:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: Kevin Lyda <kevin@NDA.COM>, dennis@etinc.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDI 2.0 vs. FreeBSD 2.x Message-ID: <Pine.AUX.3.91.960617231357.27483A-100000@covina.lightside.com> In-Reply-To: <199606172057.NAA08544@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > So, in general, NetWare is faster to DOS clients, but it's DOS's > fault, not that of the server, and much of the problem is correctable, > though there's little short term economic incentive to actually > do the correction. So what do you think of Hummingbird's Maestro NFS client (and server) for Windows NT? The sales material says it's a "multithreaded kernel mode NFS". It also comes with a bunch of generic Internet apps (telnet, FTP, etc..). Soon we will be planning to buy an UltraSPARC Enterprise Server for a satellite data collection system, and we also need to support about a dozen Windows NT boxes for typical office applications. Would it be better to run something like Hummingbird Maestro on them, or put a Netware or SAMBA fileserver on the UltraSPARC? Since the UltraSPARC will have redundant CPU's and a giant RAID array anyway, I'd feel more comfortable putting ALL of our data in the same place, where it can be backed up from the same tape drive, and protected by the same RAID, rather than buying a separate Windows NT server box. Right? ---Jake > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.AUX.3.91.960617231357.27483A-100000>