bshafer@udenva.cair.du.edu (Bob Shafer) (05/13/89)
We are looking at the possibility of using NFS for software
distribution to networked PC's in student labs in a building on
our campus and have a few questions.
The software we wish to distribute are things such as the
executables for WordPerfect, a spreadsheet and maybe Turbo Pascal
and/or C.
For the most part, students will carry around diskettes for their
data.
Each of the workstations shares a dot matrix printer with one
other workstation.
There will be ~60 IBM PS/2 Model 30286 systems distributed over
3 labs on a single logical ethernet. There will be a few more
powerful workstations on the same network (Sun's, VAXStation's,
etc.) as well as a Pyramid 90X. The ethernet will also be tied
to the campus backbone with a router or bridge of some sort.
So the network will typically get a bunch of activity at the
beginning of a lab (while students load executables) followed by
very little activity for the rest of the time.
Our concerns are:
Server hardware/software:
Options:
1) We have a spare uVAX II sitting around. We could run
Ultrix 3.0 with NFS or Mt. Xinu (BSD4.3 with NFS) on
this system and use it as a dedicated server. We need
some more memory and disk so it might run as much as
$6000 to upgrade this system.
2) We might be able to shake loose an IBM RT model 125 or
135 with plenty of memory and disk. The problem here
is the operating system software. AIX 2.2.1 is
immature and AOS (IBM's BSD 4.3) is not a complete
implementation of 4.3. Both have NFS. We have no
experience with NFS on AIX. Our experience with NFS on
AOS seems to indicate that it is based on an older
version of NFS.
With IBM's strong commitment to AIX, AIX is probably
the way to go. But only after the software matures a
bit. That may be too late for this project. We want
things in, working and stable the middle to late part
of this summer.
Another possibility is to use AIX access in place of
NFS - the problem with this is that it is not as
generic a solution as NFS.
And while there will be no additional cost I might find
it difficult to pry loose the fingers of the systems
person that works on it so we can move it to the
building.
3) Use the Pyramid. The problem here is that the system
could not be dedicated to server use only. It is used
for crunching upon occasion and both the cruncher and
the people on workstations would suffer a bit in
performance. Though it might be okay to use as a
backup server.
4) Buy two fast 80386 systems to use as servers. This is
new territory for us and I have no idea what software
to run on them. I know there is some NFS server
software from FTP and I have heard a PD or shareware
version called SOS. I do not know anything about them.
I am sure there are other commercial versions as well.
5) Buy something else (such as a Sun) as a server. The
problem here is that we have a limited budget and would
like to solve the problem (for now) in as economical a
method as possible.
So our questions are:
What server hardware/software combination is both cost effective
and capable of doing the job (i.e. does the uVAX II have enough
horses to serve this number of workstations, etc)?
What other software is out there (and how good is it), either
commercial or PD, for an 80386 server solution (if that is a
reasonable thing to do)?
Comments regarding experiences with server software would also be
appreciated. We would particularly be interested if there is an
implementation or an add-on that would allow the system to track
number of copies of executable that are checked out and prevent
a user from checking a copy out if it exceeds the number
licensed.
Client software:
Mostly: What PC client software is the best (read easiest to use,
leaves the most memory for user applications, reasonably
efficient, etc.)? Are there any PD or shareware implementations
of client software (good or bad)?
Thanks,
Bob Shafer
bshafer@du.edu
bshafer@ducair.bitnet
ncar!dunike!bshaferdyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (05/13/89)
In article <11677@duorion.cair.du.edu> bshafer@du.edu (Bob Shafer) writes: >We are looking at the possibility of using NFS for software >distribution to networked PC's in student labs in a building on >our campus and have a few questions. > 1) [VaxStations] > 2) We might be able to shake loose an IBM RT model 125 or > 135 with plenty of memory and disk. The problem here > is the operating system software. AIX 2.2.1 is > immature and AOS (IBM's BSD 4.3) is not a complete > implementation of 4.3. Both have NFS. We have no > experience with NFS on AIX. Our experience with NFS on > AOS seems to indicate that it is based on an older > version of NFS. First, I think you're obsessing too much over this. A MicroVax II would do fine. An RT 125 or 135 would do even better. Write back in a few months and tell us how wonderful this advise was. I must correct some misrepresentations about NFS and AOS 4.3. First, it's about as "complete" as port of 4.3 as I can imagine. OK, Franz Lisp and Berkeley Pascal aren't there. Jeez. The NFS code in AOS 4.3 is based on Sun's NFS 3.2 OEM package for 4.3BSD integrators. NFS 3.2 is **NOT** the NFS from Sun OS 3.2. I don't know of a later version. Project Athena at MIT has been using MicroVAXes, VAX 750s and RT PCs (125), successfully for almost two years now as file servers, based on the slightly older Sun NFS 3.0 OEM distribution, which was originally integrated into the 4.3 kernel by U Wisconsin (VAX), and RT (Brown). I have not compared the recent AOS 4.3 releas
sxn%ingersoll@Sun.COM (Stephen X. Nahm) (05/16/89)
In article <3232@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >The NFS code in AOS 4.3 is based on Sun's NFS 3.2 OEM package >for 4.3BSD integrators. NFS 3.2 is **NOT** the NFS from Sun OS 3.2. >I don't know of a later version. Actually, NFSSRC 3.2 *was* based on the SunOS 3.2 implementation of NFS, however: 1) The reference port is done to a BSD version of UNIX, so indeed it is not totally SunOS code; and 2) The Portable ONC group offers support for the reference port. Licensees who choose to purchase the support receive all bug fixes of which we are aware. Therefore, if the vendor is supported, or is using a later 3.2-based release, derived NFS implementations will probably contain all bugfixes found in, for example, SunOS 3.5. Here's a brief history of the Portable ONC releases: 3.2 NFSSRC 3/20/87 Original SunOS 3.2 code ported to 4.2BSD 3.2.1 NFSSRC 7/10/87 Bugfix release; still on 4.2BSD 3.2/4.3 NFSSRC 9/30/87 SunOS 3.2+bugfixes ported to 4.3BSD 4.0 NFSSRC 8/26/88 Original SunOS 4.0 code ported to 4.3BSD Steve Nahm sxn@sun.COM or sun!sxn