Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

The old server.

Dont be daft,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, thats the replacement server

A remarkable similarity

[Martin_1962]

We ran the same server for nearly 10 years until the original drive failed.

It had had 2 or 3 extra drives, 3 NOSes, 1 case and 3 CPUs and mother boards.

Last seen with one of the newer drives hosting a 4th NOS.

Run out of space - put in extra drive and merge it in, go a bit slow new MB processor - started as 3.11 ended up as 6.0 without original drive via 4.10 (I think) and 4.11 SP4

[Gaffers]

rather hell, I can't even give away far better systems than that - just binned a load of decent p4 stuff as nobody wanted to come and collect  

And you didnt ask moi?  

[Gaffers]

I know your pain...I have a couple of flat panel monitors that no-one wants and I can't be bothered to be scammed on eBay with them

How big?  

[TheBoy]

We ran the same server for nearly 10 years until the original drive failed.

It had had 2 or 3 extra drives, 3 NOSes, 1 case and 3 CPUs and mother boards.

Last seen with one of the newer drives hosting a 4th NOS.

Run out of space - put in extra drive and merge it in, go a bit slow new MB processor - started as 3.11 ended up as 6.0 without original drive via 4.10 (I think) and 4.11 SP4

Except Netware was pretty rubbish at multiprocessor stuff until v5. Actually, didn't really get to grips with it until v6's Linux kernel.

[theowletman]

went to the car boot on sun & bagged another bargain, Antec sonata 11 case, asrock mother board  with on board sound ) graphics, western digital caviar 250g hard drive, 700+ mb ddr ram,550 watt twin fan power supply, amd 2000xp+ processor & dvd rw multi drive all for £40....it is a bit cold tonite I'll get my anorak

Any chance of a picture as I haven't a clue what you are on about ? Do you get mashed or boiled potatoes with whatever it is you are describing ?

[Martin_1962]

We ran the same server for nearly 10 years until the original drive failed.

It had had 2 or 3 extra drives, 3 NOSes, 1 case and 3 CPUs and mother boards.

Last seen with one of the newer drives hosting a 4th NOS.

Run out of space - put in extra drive and merge it in, go a bit slow new MB processor - started as 3.11 ended up as 6.0 without original drive via 4.10 (I think) and 4.11 SP4

Except Netware was pretty rubbish at multiprocessor stuff until v5. Actually, didn't really get to grips with it until v6's Linux kernel.

Went well enough as a single processor - ours started as a 386!

Run 486 for a few years then a pentium of some form.

Back in the NW4.11 era multiprocessor was no big deal the server would handle more throughput than an NT box anyway - seen the tests ran by a supplier. Near enough twice the disk performance - about 4x total throughput for same hardware.

Tests were published - Extended Systems did them

[phil her up]

Any chance of a picture as I haven't a clue what you are on about ? Do you get mashed or boiled potatoes with whatever it is you are describing ?

  It's a computer tower. oh & i didn't mention its loaded with xp pro & nero dvd burning suite

[TheBoy]

We ran the same server for nearly 10 years until the original drive failed.

It had had 2 or 3 extra drives, 3 NOSes, 1 case and 3 CPUs and mother boards.

Last seen with one of the newer drives hosting a 4th NOS.

Run out of space - put in extra drive and merge it in, go a bit slow new MB processor - started as 3.11 ended up as 6.0 without original drive via 4.10 (I think) and 4.11 SP4

Except Netware was pretty rubbish at multiprocessor stuff until v5. Actually, didn't really get to grips with it until v6's Linux kernel.

Went well enough as a single processor - ours started as a 386!

Run 486 for a few years then a pentium of some form.

Back in the NW4.11 era multiprocessor was no big deal the server would handle more throughput than an NT box anyway - seen the tests ran by a supplier. Near enough twice the disk performance - about 4x total throughput for same hardware.

Tests were published - Extended Systems did them

I suspect a biased test.  Remember I used to look after around 300 Netware (4.11 mostly) servers, and maybe 200 odd Windows (NT3.51/NT4) servers.  Depending on users/application, mostly Compaq Prosignia 300 (small stuff) and Compaq Proliant 4500 (larger stuff) type stuff.

To be honest, not much between NW411 and NT3.5/4 performance wise.  Netware lost a bucket load of performance between V3 and V4, yet the only real change was moving from Bindery to NDS.  If you needed to use TCP/IP across your WAN routers, Netware's performance died even further, as your choices were IP Tunnels or the utterly awful NetWareIP.

Don't get me wrong, Netware was a decent NOS, esp with NDS.  But Windows servers made as good file/print servers, and far better application servers. And more reliable to.

[Martin_1962]

We ran the same server for nearly 10 years until the original drive failed.

It had had 2 or 3 extra drives, 3 NOSes, 1 case and 3 CPUs and mother boards.

Last seen with one of the newer drives hosting a 4th NOS.

Run out of space - put in extra drive and merge it in, go a bit slow new MB processor - started as 3.11 ended up as 6.0 without original drive via 4.10 (I think) and 4.11 SP4

Except Netware was pretty rubbish at multiprocessor stuff until v5. Actually, didn't really get to grips with it until v6's Linux kernel.

Went well enough as a single processor - ours started as a 386!

Run 486 for a few years then a pentium of some form.

Back in the NW4.11 era multiprocessor was no big deal the server would handle more throughput than an NT box anyway - seen the tests ran by a supplier. Near enough twice the disk performance - about 4x total throughput for same hardware.

Tests were published - Extended Systems did them

I suspect a biased test.  Remember I used to look after around 300 Netware (4.11 mostly) servers, and maybe 200 odd Windows (NT3.51/NT4) servers.  Depending on users/application, mostly Compaq Prosignia 300 (small stuff) and Compaq Proliant 4500 (larger stuff) type stuff.

To be honest, not much between NW411 and NT3.5/4 performance wise.  Netware lost a bucket load of performance between V3 and V4, yet the only real change was moving from Bindery to NDS.  If you needed to use TCP/IP across your WAN routers, Netware's performance died even further, as your choices were IP Tunnels or the utterly awful NetWareIP.

Don't get me wrong, Netware was a decent NOS, esp with NDS.  But Windows servers made as good file/print servers, and far better application servers. And more reliable to.

A supplier who produce NLMs and services found on a dual boot server that NT was about 1/4 the speed of Netware, they found the difference was mainly down to Netware disk handling being quicker.

I cannot find the test since they were bought by Sybase

[Leomas]

I know your pain...I have a couple of flat panel monitors that no-one wants and I can't be bothered to be scammed on eBay with them

How big?  

17" @1024*768 and 17" '1280*1024  nothing dramatic but fine for second systems or servers

Wouldn't imagine that they are worth shipping to Germany though

[dbug]

     

[TheBoy]

I know your pain...I have a couple of flat panel monitors that no-one wants and I can't be bothered to be scammed on eBay with them

How big?  

17" @1024*768 and 17" '1280*1024  nothing dramatic but fine for second systems or servers

Wouldn't imagine that they are worth shipping to Germany though

How much?

[TheBoy]

We ran the same server for nearly 10 years until the original drive failed.

It had had 2 or 3 extra drives, 3 NOSes, 1 case and 3 CPUs and mother boards.

Last seen with one of the newer drives hosting a 4th NOS.

Run out of space - put in extra drive and merge it in, go a bit slow new MB processor - started as 3.11 ended up as 6.0 without original drive via 4.10 (I think) and 4.11 SP4

Except Netware was pretty rubbish at multiprocessor stuff until v5. Actually, didn't really get to grips with it until v6's Linux kernel.

Went well enough as a single processor - ours started as a 386!

Run 486 for a few years then a pentium of some form.

Back in the NW4.11 era multiprocessor was no big deal the server would handle more throughput than an NT box anyway - seen the tests ran by a supplier. Near enough twice the disk performance - about 4x total throughput for same hardware.

Tests were published - Extended Systems did them

I suspect a biased test.  Remember I used to look after around 300 Netware (4.11 mostly) servers, and maybe 200 odd Windows (NT3.51/NT4) servers.  Depending on users/application, mostly Compaq Prosignia 300 (small stuff) and Compaq Proliant 4500 (larger stuff) type stuff.

To be honest, not much between NW411 and NT3.5/4 performance wise.  Netware lost a bucket load of performance between V3 and V4, yet the only real change was moving from Bindery to NDS.  If you needed to use TCP/IP across your WAN routers, Netware's performance died even further, as your choices were IP Tunnels or the utterly awful NetWareIP.

Don't get me wrong, Netware was a decent NOS, esp with NDS.  But Windows servers made as good file/print servers, and far better application servers. And more reliable to.

A supplier who produce NLMs and services found on a dual boot server that NT was about 1/4 the speed of Netware, they found the difference was mainly down to Netware disk handling being quicker.

I cannot find the test since they were bought by Sybase

NLM supplier - ie, trying to flog Netware stuff

Either that, or set Windows up using FAT.  NTFS has always been more efficient than Netware's filesystem, though its irrelevent, as all servers should be offloading onto a dedicated controller anyway.  Back in the KnitWare 4.11 days, we were using either 16Mb (up to 12M battery backed) or 64Mb (56Mb battery backed) cached SCSI controllers, which were pretty much the norm everywhere. This jumped up to 256 then 512, then 1G caches.  Generally now, for x86/x64 architecture, like most companies, we use VMs running on blades, with SAN as storage, so all caching done at SAN end.

[Leomas]

I know your pain...I have a couple of flat panel monitors that no-one wants and I can't be bothered to be scammed on eBay with them

How big?  

17" @1024*768 and 17" '1280*1024  nothing dramatic but fine for second systems or servers

Wouldn't imagine that they are worth shipping to Germany though

How much?

Free to collector