#Network Cards?
10 messages in this thread
JKJ:
I used lantastic at work for a few years and am not too impressed, how about a
peer to peer Novell ,Netwarelite I think
it's called? How many Megabits are the Noderunner cards?
Richard,
PMJI, but there are inherrant disadvantages to ALL peer-to-peer
solutions, and Netware light is no exception. As an Authorized
Novell dealer, we sell Lantastic for our peer-to-peer or small
dedicated server environments, it's just better!. If you want
throughput, go with a "serious" network like Novell or PC-NFS.
All IEEE 802.3 10-Base2 (thin-net) and 10-BaseT (twisted pair) network
cards are rated for a THEORETICAL throughput of 10MBS. However, it is
a gross simplification to say that there are about a gizillion (nice
term, huh! <BG>) other factors that affect network performance such
as Packet Exchanges, Collisions, Retries, etc.
I'm using Lantastic 5.0/AI on a 3 user system with 10Mbps cards and
can't say enough good things about it. It's seems very fast to me
under those circumstances and it was very inexpensive since I the
cards were cast-offs from Western Digital.
Martin,
Don't get me wrong, I was not intending that comment to be critisism of
Lantastic (in the message I said that we install Lantastic for those clients
that would benefit from it), but in response to the question about NetWare
Light. If you are looking at a low-cost peer-to-peer setup, Lantastic is
DEFINITELY the software to choose.
However as you networking needs grow and you start to look at such issues as
shared application access, network software installation, diskless
workstations, etc. you will need to eventually look beyond Lantastic. Our
company is this statement coming to fruition, as we are currently making the
switch to NetWare 3.12. Lantastic has served us well, but at 12 PC's and 3
MAC's we have simply outgrown it.
Why NetWare, it's 32-bit architecture at the server (as opposed to 16 Bit DOS
based networks) offers network performance and throughput unmatched by anything
but the best UNIX-based networks, and it's support for the MAC's.
Chuck
Chuck,
I wasn't criticising you. I was just noting my satisfaction of Lantastic 5.0
for my small network. It might well be less satisfactory on a larger network –
I really have no experience in that area, so will take your word for it.
Martin,
Your comments of satisfaction are always welcome, and I guess that I was a
"little bit defensive" on that one! <BG>
Chuck
Chuck:
>> I guess that I was a "little bit defensive" on that one! <BG>
It comes from being beat up a couple of times! <g>
Greg Pyros
Greg,
>> It comes from being beat up a couple of times! <g> <<
At whose hands may I ask? <BG>
Chuck:
Big Brother's! <g>
Greg Pyros
Chuck,
>> I guess that I was a "little bit defensive" on that one! <BG>
No worries, mate 🙂