Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35265)	12/10/1999 11:03:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

SI's problems: Liz, I wouldn't expect anybody to take my word on this, so I dug up some messages from Bob a few weeks back. The problem isn't Apache or Linux, as some of the local faithful have opined, and it isn't inadequate hardware. Here's Bob: Message 11979525 Message 11979671 Just for entertainment, from the first message: To say we need "servers that actually work" is a gross over-simplification and incorrect. The SQL server (aptly named "Behemoth") has 2 gig of RAM in it, but my understanding is there have been some NT issues regarding such an enormous amount of memory. They're actively working on the problem and it seems to have been getting better. In terms of hardware, few PC's exist that're our machines' equals. "Better servers" don't exist. In any event, it's my understanding that most of the current problems are operating system issues. And they're being addressed. Old timers will recognize the "issues" code word is synonymous for what Intel calls "errata", things that outside the corporate PR domain are commonly known as bugs. Or maybe that's only "known issues". From the second message: You missed the central point of my message. It's not a matter of the system running on cheap hardware. Not even remotely. It's not a hardware issue and throwing money at it won't solve it. The programmers are working on it and they just have to figure out, as Brad and Jeff always have done, how to get Windoze NT and SQL Server to perform reliably with such a huge load. As I said previously, benchmarks aren't everything. And while my original suggestion that SI should upgrade to NT2K was a bit facetious, it wasn't entirely so. To Microsoft's credit, the two most recent big upgrades, IE5 and Office 2k, seem to have been considerably less featuritis driven than previous releases. IE5 was supposed to be smaller than IE4, even, and what I've read about Office 2K says that it was redesigned for more modularity and networkablity, not for more features. Good for Microsoft. Win2K may follow in a similar vein, what I've read about that is the main problem is driver support, which probably isn't that big an issue with servers. Well, there's the "Active Directory" power play, but leaving that aside. . . Maybe it would work better for SI, unfortunately on a big, high demand operation, admins have to be conservative. Cheers, Dan.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35265)	12/10/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: ericneu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

* fsUtilMsgPreviewSubmit: Can't allocate space for object 'Syslogs' in database 'qcomstock' because the 'logsegment' segment is full. If you ran out of space in Syslogs, dump the transaction log. Otherwise, use ALTER DATABASE or sp_extendsegment to increase the size of the segment. Severity 17, State 2, Procedure 'gargantua updateSnapshot', Line 3 --- I'm not certain (I'm not a db specialist), but that looks like it's from SQL Server 6.5. If so, that might explain some of the issues we're seeing. SQL Server 7.0 will auto-grow databases and logs as needed, and also has dramatic performance improvements over 6.5. Saying "it's SQL 6.5, that's your problem" is a massive over-simplification, but it's an interesting data point. I think we're probably boring most of the thread - I'll stop now :). - Eric