Hi All

I was looking for some stuff that would tell me what my client needs if they want to go to win2000 w/s and keep the OI app on their Novell 4.11 (?) network server, they already have an unlimited NLM licence.

We need to be able to run OI and Arev and OIPI

I am under the distinct impression that this particular combination doesn't work very well and they might be better off with the win2000 workstations and an NT 4 server or even a win2000 server. They already have a combination of NT and Novell servers. The network guy wants any new NT server to be a "member" server. I have no idea if this will run OI, Arev and the Linear Hash Service effectively. I am trying to figure out if this (win 2000 ws and NT member server) work better than Win2000ws and Novell?,

What other issues are there that I haven't thought about?

Has anyone else got OI, ARev and OIPI on the Win2000/Novel4.11 combination?

Is installing OIPI on Win2000ws like installing it on NT?

Scott, LMS

(I have read the network grid thing, and it is difficult to make sense of, but I will have another go)

Hi all

I'm waiting impatiently. I went through a vast quantity of network stuff, looking for some clue as to what my client should do, and I'm still fairly sure that Win2000 workstation and Novell are a no-no. But I am beginning to suspect that this applies more to Novell 5.x not Novell 4.x

I would like to read the opinion of anyone out there who might have tried, or has the win2000 workstation - novell combination.

Please, pretty please.

Scott.

Given that Windows NT and Windows 2000 are obstensibly the same base product, and that we have several installations running Novell 5 servers with Windows 2000 and NT workstations and LH products (REVG, AREV and OI) there is no real impediment, and the one problem (slowness in one specific case) is being worked on jointly by Novell and Revelation - the issue is known. We'd recommend the NLM in these settings for AREV and OI.

The Sprezzatura Group

World Leaders in all things RevSoft

Hi Sprezz

Just when I thought I'd go and eat worms…

Ok I guess I tell the client to proceed with Plan A, and set up a win2000 workstation and link it to the application on the Novell server and see how it goes.

Thanks

Scott, LMS

Around here there's no such a thing as a bad question. It's avoiding the bad answers that we spend extra time on.

The Sprezzatura Group

World Leaders in all things RevSoft

Hi Sprezz

I forgot to mention the client is currently using Win95 client, and I think this makes a difference ie Win2000 professional workstation may be significantly slower (than win95 workstation) with the Novell server.

I think I will still get my client to set up the Windows 2000 workstation for testing. And Revelation have told me there is a fix for the problem that we might be able to have in September, which means we wouldn't need to set up an NT server.

I still don't know if it matters if we put the application on a "member" NT Server and the Linear Hash service on the member server. I think that should work ok, but I am not sure if the directory services (thing that keeps track of who is allowed to log in?) interacts with linear hash server ie if they have to be on the same machine.

Do you (Sprezz) or anyone else have the Linear hash running on a "member" NT server?

Scott Confused (again).

Hi all

Just got word from REV' that putting the Linear Hash Service on an NT Member server should make no difference to putting it on a regular directory services NT server. Ie the Linear Hash Service should work fine on the NT Member server. At least I think that is what was meant by

"Member" server will make no difference.

Hopefully the Linear hash service will still make the expected difference (improvement in performance).

Scott

Being silly now.

Speak for yourself.

I pride myself on bad answers.

When an answer's good, it's very good, but when it's bad it's probably from Gary.

Remember, the number after a product means that's the percentage slower from previous version. So, Novell 4.11 is 4.11% slower than the previous version of Novell and Windows 2000 is 2000% slower than the previous version of Windows.

Do the math.

garygnu@compuserve.com

Hi all

Now I start wondering if you are talking to yourself/selves. Well I guess I started (and continued) it.

I think the worst answer is no answer, closely followed by half an answer. What I have here is a sideways issue of contradictory answers, which will hopefully go away or become irrelevant/irreverant if I can get my hands on the new NLM.

We always said that in Windows 95, 95 meant the number of times you had to reboot before the system was installed correctly. I think I am about 11 reboots away from Win2000. And I probably would have gotten there quicker with Nike boots (just STOP it) because they require rebooting more often than Rockports.

…willy was a sheepdog…

not a wombat, but sometimes a numbat

Scott, LMS

[url=http://www.esl.com.au/savewildlife.htm]

Hi All

This is the initial results of my bench marking.

I am not sure if it is just windows 2000 being incredibly hungry or

Windows 2000 and the NLM/Lan combo, but

Windows 2000 is S L O W Z Z Z Z z z z

Not the most scientific test so far. Ie I had one moderately gutsy PC running Win95

One gutless PC running win 95 and one in between running windows 2000.

And I haven't tested the AREV yet.

I hope my clients are getting new PCs with their Win2000.

Local is OI app on hard disk

Network is same OI app on Novell Server

Same data for both.

Test 1 is how long it takes to bring up my login screen

Test 2 is how long after I click to login it takes to let me have control again.

    Windows 2000

    64MB Ram 300Hz

    Local Test 1 : 16 seconds

    Local Test 2 : 16 seconds

    Windows 2000

    64MB Ram 300Hz

    Network Test 1 : 26 seconds

    Network Test 2 : 64 seconds

    Windows 95

    128MB Ram 450Hz

    Network Test 1 : 8 seconds

    Network Test 2 : 9 seconds

    Windows 95

    48MB Ram 133Hz

    Network Test 1 : 20 seconds

    Network Test 2 : 22 seconds

Scott

Hi All

This is the initial results of my bench marking.

I am not sure if it is just windows 2000 being incredibly hungry or

Windows 2000 and the NLM/Lan combo, but

Windows 2000 is S L O W Z Z Z Z z z z

Not the most scientific test so far. Ie I had one moderately gutsy PC running Win95

One gutless PC running win 95 and one in between running windows 2000.

And I haven't tested the AREV yet.

I hope my clients are getting new PCs with their Win2000.

Local is OI app on hard disk

Network is same OI app on Novell Server

Same data for both.

Test 1 is how long it takes to bring up my login screen

Test 2 is how long after I click to login it takes to let me have control again.

    Windows 2000

    64MB Ram 300Hz

    Local Test 1 : 16 seconds

    Local Test 2 : 16 seconds

    Windows 2000

    64MB Ram 300Hz

    Network Test 1 : 26 seconds

    Network Test 2 : 64 seconds

    Windows 95

    128MB Ram 450Hz

    Network Test 1 : 8 seconds

    Network Test 2 : 9 seconds

    Windows 95

    48MB Ram 133Hz

    Network Test 1 : 20 seconds

    Network Test 2 : 22 seconds

Better if you don't mind scrolling down alot.

We have done a lot of testing on a lot of different networks. We use a benchmark routine that essentially reads records from one table then writes them to another table that is not pre-sized. We lock the records during this process to simulate real-world use.

On a Novell 4.11 network with a 64MB 166mhz Novell Fast Wide SCSI Raid 5 server using a 266mhz Windows 95 workstation we see about 575 records per second. If we place a 1.5ghz W2K machine on that same network it completes only 41 per second. No, this is not a typo. We are talking 41/sec vs. 575 per second. We also have a dual processor Windows NT 4 workstation on the same network that completes about 340/sec.

Based on results like this we purchased a W2K, 1 ghz dual-processor server with 640MB RAM, Ultra 160 SCSI Raid 5, and installed the NT/2000 Service. Using a 1.5ghz W2K workstation we see about 490/second.

If you want performance, stay with Novell and Windows 95/98/ME. If you want Windows 2000 on the desktop, go to a Microsoft server, but be prepared for a disappointing drop in performance.

Dan

FWIW our testing agrees with you. Arev seems ok but OI is very slow.

OI on a NetWare server (3.12,4.x or 5.x) with a Windows NT or Windows 2000 client is very slow - period! We have tried using both Microsoft Client and Novell Client 32 (versions 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8) for NT/2000 but all have the same problem. A Windows 95/98 workstation on the same network is fine.

Changes to protocol order, running just IPX, changing frametypes etc all have no effect at all.

The slowness only occurs with the NLM though. Take off the NLM and change NETDRV to use All Networks (also remove Revparam of course) and it works much faster but of course then not getting benefits of the NLM.

I'd be interested to know more about Sprezz's comment "the one problem (slowness in one specific case)" though because as far as I can see any 2000/NT workstation talking to any copy of OI on Netware with the NLM IS A PROBLEM. Andrew?

I'm still amazed that more people haven't complained about this. I guess as Windows 2000 hits the desktop more will?

Tony

View this thread on the forum...