[2744] in linux-net channel archive
linux
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (fernando.cerioni@smtp.alem.startel)
Tue Apr 30 18:21:52 1996
From: fernando.cerioni@smtp.alem.startel.com.ar
Date: 30 Apr 96 12:57:00 -0300
To: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu (Receipt Notification Requested)
Dear linuxers:
I-m subscribed in a firewalls list and receive daily a lot of info concerning that theme. The address is:
firewalls@greatcircle.com
Lately is a discussion about the robustness of the UNIX systems when the power fails.
Mr. Penn Jennings attacked hardly the Linux OS. Apparently he knows very little of Linux and is a SCO fanatic.
Here is a copy of his mail to the list:
From: Penn Jennings <jennings@cyberca.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: Intell firewalls: more than just performance
>All this discussion of firewall performance is very interesting, but I
>think people are forgetting that there is more to performance than mere
>throughput. In particular, we should talk about robustness.
>
>This is where Intel-based solutions fall on their face compared to
>commercial workstations. Ask yourself this question - if I were to go
>yank the power cord out of the wall, what sort of shape would the system
>be in when I restarted it?
First, if you don't have a UPS, you deserve to have something happen to you.
Second, on an SCO, Solaris x86 or Unisys system, nothing more than with a
Sparc or HP.
>We got a hard lesson in this recently due to a freak power failure. An
>entire rack of Unix machines lost power. Three RS/6000s of various
>models all came back up perfectly as soon as power was restored. Two
>SPARC 20 machines didn't fare quite so well... their internal drives
>were fine, but their external drives were horked. And the PC running
>Linux? It took 15 minutes to get its filesystems back into a runnable
>state.
Most people that I know would not run Linux in production. SCO or Unixware
make much better choices.
>The reason for this isn't software, it's hardware. The power supplies
>are designed to protect not only the hardware, but also the filesystems.
>When a power failure happens, the power supply notifies the operating
>system kernel, which immediately initiates a clean shutdown. The power
>supply has enough onboard capacitance to run the machine for the several
>seconds needed to at least sync the drives.
Without a UPS your asking for it.
>PC hardware doesn't have this sort of support. Remember, it was
>designed with the DOS FAT filesystem in mind, which isn't sensitive to
>system states the way UNIX filesystems are. So whenever power is lost,
>the system loses state and the filesystems get horked.
Why would you buy a server from -Best Buy-? Get a Compac or Dell. You
are using the worst case examples in your argument. I work for a retailer
that has over 6,500 Intel Unix systems in the field. EVERY one has a UPS.
Why would you pay 5,000 - 20,000 for a server, intrust it with your data
and NOT spend 300 on a UPS.
Also, why would you use Linux in an inportant production system? Linux is
great for many applications. However, it is not nearly as stable and robust
as SCO, Unixware, Solaris x86 or Unisys Unix. It appears to me that you
are comparing a -basement- Unix box to a sparc... What's wrong with
this picture?
__________________________________________________________________
Copyright 1996 (c) Penn Jennings
Penn Jennings
jennings@cyberca.com
http://www.cyberca.com/~jennings/
The road to evil is paved with good intentions.
An employer once said, -What if I train my people and they leave.-
I say, what if you don't train them..... and they stay..
