Toy -
Let me weigh in on the Netware - NT discussion. Over the years I have done a lot of development on systems which used Netware as the file system backbone. In fact, until maybe 1995, there was really no other choice for reliable, fast file system support on Intel-based hardware. Netware has traditionally enjoyed some great strengths, especially when used as a base file store, but has a lot of weaknesses when used otherwise.
As a quick checkpoint, there are more than 2 million netware 2X and 3X servers in use today (none are Y2K compliant by the way but that's another issue) and another 2 million or so 4X servers. Compaq has the bulk of those installations, more than 60% of the installed base and more than 50% of new sales. In Unit volume, CPQ sells about as many servers for Novell as for NT. As an additional datapoint, the NT servers are typically configured as much larger systems, so in revenue terms, CPQ makes a lot more on NT servers than on Novell.
One reason for this is the efficiency of Netware's file operations. I have done instruction counts on typical applications, and Netware will retrieve a disk block, on average, in less than 5,000 instructions as opposed to NT's 30,000 or more. NT is also much less deterministic in response time. This efficiency is one of the reasons that Netware has managed to maintain the edge in small and medium file and print use - it runs faster and more reliably on cheaper, smaller hardware.
But there can be no doubt that Novell is not even in the game as an applications platform. Novell has tried a number of things to change both the perception and reality behind this positioning. Jeff Merkey spent a good deal of his career at Novell tilting at this windmill. IMHO Novell has wisely abandoned this as a development direction.
NT does not have this feature and relies on the application to perform TTS
Only true if you are using FAT. NTFS is a journaling file system which has inherent transaction recovery. Of course it is not a full-blown bi-phase commit logging scheme, but neither is TTS. The database engines provide that level of recovery for database operations, and MTS provides it for application transactions. Netware TTS only does linear transaction encapsulation, which is useful for resolving multi-lock contention but not particularly valuable for error recovery except in very simple cases.
As for your Ring-3 chatter. 99.9% of NLMs run in Ring 0
This is exactly the problem. No application should ever run in ring 0 IMO, it opens the door to many potential problems for a slight gain in performance.
I was a huge fan of Netware for many years, and I still think they have sharp, focused technologists. They lost their way at the end of Noorda's tenure and did not get back on track until ES took over. If they concentrate on directory services and truly understanding network/application data dependency, they can achieve the same excellence in a new space that they formerly held in the file system backbone.
But I believe that their days in the traditional F&P space are numbered. The trend is to storage area networks which will make that niche disappear, and I suspect that to happen in just a few years. Novell themselves have nearly abandoned their somewhat lame attempts at clustering and applications platform capability, which I think is a good thing. Your comments about the efficiency and reliability of Netware are true and well taken, but they have no relevance to the future of server infrastructure. Novell needs to get into a different game, and with dedication and a little luck, they will get there.
The discussion about Netware vs. NT in either the file server or application space is therefore kind of empty, since IMO Novell will voluntarily withdraw from that space as soon as their business model permits. |
