HP3000-L Archives

April 1996, Week 3

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gary Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Gary Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 Apr 1996 19:38:22 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
>>John Painter wrote:
>
>>MPE folk:
>>
>>Here's my $.02 on the current threads on this list concerning networking
>>and Netware on the 3000.
>>
>>First: Netware on the 3000, in spite of HPs protests to the contrary, is
>>not very effective.  For adequate response time you need a 9x7, 9x8 or
>>faster system with beefed up memory and disc.  Even so, the response is
>>nowhere near as good as a decent PC server such as an HP Netserver.
>>Netware on the 3000 is stuck in an earlier version 3.11 and we
>>have found some odd problems that show up on the the 3k version of
>>Netware but not on the Native netware boxes on our same network.  Unless
>>you have very limited use in mind, stick with a seperate PC server.
>>
>>Second:  For those who just want a networked connection to the 3000 from
>>their PCs, Netware is not required.  You simply need a terminal
>>emulation product like Reflection and a TCP/IP stack (winsock).  The
>>stack can be a product like WRQs "3000 Connection", or it can be a third
>>party stack like the Microsoft Winsock.  We have found the easiest
>>solution to be Windows 95 with the Microsoft Stack and Reflection 1 for
>>Win95 with NS/VT.  For Macs, we stick with the WRQ NS Open product for
>>the network drivers.
>
>I would like to echo John's comments regarding using the 3k as a substitute
>for a traditional pc/server. We used to use Resource Sharing on our 937 and
>have since replaced it with NT. While this is not Netware/xl, I believe
>there are enough similarities to make the discussion valid. Here is what we
>found:
>
>1. standalone server faster
>2. disk usage on the 3k was higher for the same number of files than on the
>pc/server solution.
>3. peripherals are cheaper for the pc/server solution than for the 3k.
>4. you never get 'native' server support. You see this in Netware/xl with
>not being able to run nlm and in Resource Sharing/xl you couldn't run any
>server code that needed to be running 'on the pc server itself' like mail
>servers. You can only use software that uses the shared disk approach.
>5. the pc/server world reacts much faster to industry trends than does hp/mpe.
>
>So, in short, we are extremely happy with our decision to migrate from using
>the 3k as a server to a separate pc/server.
>
>Duane Percox  (QSS)
>[log in to unmask] (415-306-1608, fax 415-365-2706)
>http://www.aimnet.com/~qssnet/
> ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/qssnet/
>"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas." -- Linus Pauling
>
 
I guess it comes down to using the right tool for the right job!!
Gary Jackson
Nevada CSOS
(916) 478-6407 - voice
(916) 478-6410 - fax

ATOM RSS1 RSS2