pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) (01/08/91)
I have used netware 2.15a for 2 years and lantastic 3.02 for 3 months. Netware is 20+ diskettes, lantastic is 1. I am not sure what netware has over lantastic yet, except a bunch of utility programs. How would you answer the statement: Is lantastic just as good as netware? Please post responses to the net or email to me. /*----------- Thanks in advance... --------------------------------------+ | Peter C. Bahrs | | The USL-NASA Project | | Center For Advanced Computer Studies INET: pcb@swamp.cacs.usl.edu | | 2 Rex Street | | University of Southwestern Louisiana ...!uunet!dalsqnt!gator!pcb | | Lafayette, LA 70504 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------*/
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (01/08/91)
In an article pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) wrote: >I have used netware 2.15a for 2 years and lantastic 3.02 for 3 months. >Netware is 20+ diskettes, lantastic is 1. > >I am not sure what netware has over lantastic yet, except a bunch of >utility programs. How would you answer the statement: > Is lantastic just as good as netware? > I want to propose one answer in the form of a question, since I'm not that familiar yet, either, with both. Does Lantastic provide a way to develop client-server software? Is it possible to have for example a database server on a Lantastic server? Is there support for remote procedure calls? I think the answer is no. -- John Dudeck "Communication systems are jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu inherently complex". ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 -- Ron Oliver
louie@cellar.bae.bellcore.com (Paul Louie) (01/09/91)
In article <22157@rouge.usl.edu> pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) writes: >I have used netware 2.15a for 2 years and lantastic 3.02 for 3 months. >Netware is 20+ diskettes, lantastic is 1. > >I am not sure what netware has over lantastic yet, except a bunch of >utility programs. How would you answer the statement: > Is lantastic just as good as netware? > >Please post responses to the net or email to me. Well, having 1 of anything wouldn't reveal much. The answer is file access speed. For a long time there are nothing on the market (PC platform, of course) can match NW 286. Lately, the IBM and MS gang come up with LAN Manager that in parity. But, then the Novell folks have NW 386, which is still king of the hill when it comes to speed contest. For awhile, the IBM/MS guys' argument is that NW is a proprietary and close system. Well in a few months NLM for MACs and NLM for TCP/IP and MHS would be available. How more open can you get. Besides, in a user's view he can find that every apps on the market support NW (To be expected when Novell has a market share in Net O/S approaching 70%). So, it was really a moot point to begin with. No I'm not affiliate with Novell in any way, shape, or form. It's just that I have opportunities to experience many Net O/S's and NW has the most usability overall. Anyway, back to your point - if you want to compare O/S's it is pretty simple to do. What I did was that I written a simple program to copy a test file on the server(content and size are irrelevant) to a target subdirectory that is on the work station's hard disk. A counter is incremented after each copy and value became the next target file's name. Now on all other stations I just run a batch file that do recursive copy of the test file to something fast, like a VDISK. The procedure is this - I run the batch file on as many stations as I can get my hands on. Then I go back to the station with the hard disk and I start my test program and let it run for 1 minute. Afterward I do a DIR and look for the highest file name (which is how many time I copied the test file). It sounds simple and might not be the most elegant, but it is accurate enough to tell me who is the fastest. Paul P.S. - Of course, if you can use the same HW for each O/S the better.
craig@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Stuart A Craig ) (01/09/91)
pcb@cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) writes: >I have used netware 2.15a for 2 years and lantastic 3.02 for 3 months. >Netware is 20+ diskettes, lantastic is 1. >I am not sure what netware has over lantastic yet, except a bunch of >utility programs. How would you answer the statement: > Is lantastic just as good as netware? I have been really pleased with Lantastic. For one thing their low cost is extreamly attractive. They also do not tie up a lot of memory (considerably less than most other network applications I have seen). These were the two main reasons I decided to go with lantastic. Their NETBIOS is fairly strait forword and conforms well with standards, We have written several routines that utilize it for doing remote procedure calls and message sending. Speed is ok, but nothing to write home about, however I hear that the ethernet version is simple, FAST, and reliable. (The Lantastic ethernet cards were not out yet and there was a six month waiting list the WD ethernet cards when I purchased our network). Netware is great, but for Price, performance reliablity, and low memory use, you really can't bet Lantastic. -Stuart Craig internet craig@phobos.cis.ksu.edu bitnet sac@ksuvm
gt0652b@prism.gatech.EDU (gt0652b gt0652b gt0652b Josh Guttman) (01/14/91)
I have just finished installing a Lantastic Ethernet network for a client
of mine and find it to be a wonderfull netwoek solution. First of all,
Lantastic's setup program provides a quick and easy way to set up
your network. However, there are some options that you can use to make
Lantastic a speed deamon (sp?).
1. Get a copy of Quarterdeck's Qemm 386 NOW! (Server must be a 386)
2. After installing QEMM-386, boost all of Lantastic's server
startup parameters in Net_mgr. This involves setting the number
of networkm tasks equal to the number of nodes on your network,
increasing the shared printer buffer size, increasing the network
buffer size and increasing the max number of open files. (Not to
exceed 50 files)
3. Run lancache in extended memory with the following parameters:
write_back-delay=300
read_delay=300 (something like that)
size = 4096
4. run fastopen on the server
In the preceeding enhancements, I have assumed an adequate level of
network hardware. To resolve any misunderstanding I will describe
the hardware that was involved in my setup:
Northgate 386-25 ISA with 6MBytes SIMM Ram
200mb 15ms IDE Hard Disk
{More but not necessary for the above changes}
Lantastic 10Mbit thin ethernet adapters
Uninterruptable Power Supply (Necessary for the After_write_delay
settings of lancache
I would be happy to answer and questions about Lantastic
Josh Guttman
gt0652b@prism.gatech.edu
404-355-3908 Home
404-434-3073 Work