Subject: Re: netatalk in production environments....(Netware and Stuff...)

From: "Luke McNeilage" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 12:19:45 +1000

> This is something that I have found to be correct as well, at least in small
> benchmarks involving up to 5 clients. We had a shoot-out at one point
> between ASIP, linux+netatalk, Win NT and Netware. They ended up, in
> declining speeds, in the above order (over 10base-T).
>

The true issue here is IP. Windows NT is not IP, neither is NetWare (I
assume this by the results.) Try turning off TCP/IP on the Macintoshes and
compare how each system goes on just AppleTalk. That is not to say I support
WINdozz, but with the introduction of 2000, they have IP support for ASIP.
If you wish IP support under NT, you have to get a program called
MacServerIP7, from Cyan Software wwww.cyansoftware.com.

Obviously with ASIP 6.2, especially when run on a G4, (the worlds fastest
desktop workstation), the answer is daahhhh. But the point is the difference
in price.

That makes the rest of this test a bit incredulous.

> ASIP was surprisingly the fastest of the bunch, followed by netatalk.
> Windows NT was factor of 2x slower, and we interrupted the Netware benchmark
> when it was 10x slower, and there was no end in sight (a combination of
> large and smaller files was sent, from a 600+ mb folder).
>
> My concern has always been the system scaling to support large numbers of
> stations, but if you are dealing with 500+ clients, then that appears to be
> less of an issue.
>
> Nevertheless, I believe that your comments regarding the death of netatalk
> are both premature, if not unfair. While netatalk has very much been
> languishing for years with no significant enhancements to version
> 1.33/1.42b, asun has done a marvelous job resurrecting it, and turning it
> into a very effective, and very capable tool - and juggling to implement as
> much of the specs (including taking into consideration real-world issues) as
> he can.
>
> While you are correct that Adrian has a day-job, he works for a vendor that
> provides, amongst other, servers with netatalk capabilities (*) - hence,
> there is a reason for him to keep enhancing netatalk, and hopefully such
> enhancements will be shared with the public version. It is, after all, in
> Cobalt's best interest to provide a better netatalk - unless they subscribe
> to the Netware/Novell mentality of marginalizing the Mac platform...
>
> Anyway, good comments, and a good thread overall.
>
> Harry
>
>
> (*) Which brings me to a question I asked earlier that has gone unanswered:
> Are there any improvements in the netatalk that ships with Cobalt boxes, and
> does anyone know?
>
>
>

---

From: Harry Zink/Netatalk List <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 10:14:34 -0700

on 6/7/00 7:19 PM, Luke McNeilage at [email-masked] wrote:

> assume this by the results.)

Of course it is, but the bonehead IT 'specialists' that were making
decisions in that environment actually firmly believed that NT would blows
ASIP (or Linux) out of the waters), until the results came in.

Those folks wouldn't even know what 'IP' is.

> That makes the rest of this test a bit incredulous.

The 'benchmark' was not made to prove some technological agenda, but rather
to demonstrate to a bunch of morons that they were wrong.

Fact still was that Linux was a bit slower than the ASIP installation we
were using, but, as previously pointed out, that was an issue of hardware
differences. ASIP ran on a G3 at the time, Linux on an AMD K6/233.

> But the point is the difference in price.

Hnestly, this seems to be a permanent mantra, but by the time you put
together a serious workstations to compete, performance-wise with a lowest
end G4, you'd have spent the same $1500 - more if you buy them from a
genuine vendor.

Harry