NT Vs Linux Vs Navaho (Was: SendMail relays)
In message <20020710164100.EJNR19225.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@there>
Ian Lynch
On Tuesday 09 July 2002 21:36, you wrote: <snip>
What will be vital is the support. We use navaho for web/email and the support is second to none.
Theoreticaly we are a reseller of the Navaho system, but in practice we can implement far more comprehensive network management using vanilla Linux and its less expensive to schools.
<snip> Yes Vanill;a Linux is cheaper BUT the Navaho we use is not a Network Management solution, we use NT for that. Its a mail, web proxy and caledaring system with comprehensive monitoring. We don't use the the local filing system side. Vanilla Linux is never going to be as fast because of the single binary that is Navaho. An exciting new adjunct is a webfiler to re-export the users NT file area through a web front end. One of the problems I've found with Linux is the permissions. You **seem** to get far more control using NT permissions. But please tell **me I'm wrong because I'd love to be able to argue losing NT for filing. -- Colin McQueen : Using an Acorn StrongARM Risc PC Web Domain : http://www.mcqueen.uk.net/ BSc Zoology + Oceanography : PGCE : MSc in CBL/T
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 14 Jul 2002 8:51 pm, Colin McQueen wrote: <snip>
Vanilla Linux is never going to be as fast because of the single binary that is Navaho.
Six formula one cars can get around the Silverstone circuit much quicker than one lorry. A single binary sounds like an odd solution to me.
One of the problems I've found with Linux is the permissions. You **seem** to get far more control using NT permissions. But please tell **me I'm wrong because I'd love to be able to argue losing NT for filing.
Samba supports MS "Access Control Lists". You will need to recompile Samba with the appropriate option, and use a filesystem which supports the additional meta-data, such as XFS. You will also need to use software for backup and restore which includes the meta-data, such as the utilities provided with XFS. The kernel supplied with the retail SuSE8.0 has a slight problem with XFS which was fixed in Mantels tree. I assume that the kernel in the public ftp version of SuSE8.0 has this fix, but do not know for sure. HTH C. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9MhgU+prcXMebSWQRAhNLAJ0Slc/ciEJzIkYn7wAUBYsqo3MjzgCdFKKT dNpLSoURL4kCCfDHjJQwHmI= =0OE5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Vanilla Linux is never going to be as fast because of the single binary that is Navaho.
Huge monolithic binaries are common with Windows because processs creation is an expensive and time consuming operation. This does not apply to unix type systems. Indeed a large monolithic application could end up slower than several smaller applications especially if the large one has a large RSS. -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763
At 10:01 15/07/02 +0100, you wrote:
Vanilla Linux is never going to be as fast because of the single binary that is Navaho.
Huge monolithic binaries are common with Windows because processs creation is an expensive and time consuming operation. This does not apply to unix type systems. Indeed a large monolithic application could end up slower than several smaller applications especially if the large one has a large RSS.
Staroffice 5.2 vs 6.0 is a case in point, one big BIN was slow in 5.2 but 6.0 is much faster. However if the 1 Binary is big, but not very big, then it can be faster than calling other binaries. Take as little as is needed from each separate binary melt it into one large single binary with a total size much less than that of the combined smaller binaries and you should end up with a faster and more compact system. Rob
participants (4)
-
Clive Jones -
Colin McQueen -
Mark Evans -
s-clarob＠st-aidans.cumbria.sch.uk