On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 03:11:57PM -0700, David Stults wrote:
> > As far as its use as an NFS server, Solaris is OK. I don't know how the
> > speed compares to BSD, but NetApp is definitely superior.
>
> And if it didn't cost $200k to get into a decent NetApp setup, I'd go for
> it. Looks like I'm about to get stuck with one, however. My choice would
> be a dual E-420/A5200/Veritas setup with no single points of failure. Costs
> about $100k less than a no-single-point-of-failure NetApp cluster.
UH, sorry but it doesn't cost anywhere near $200k for a decent NetApp setup,
unless you want a 1TB cluster.
We just bought an 820 with 350G usable for under $40k. Yes, it's still
expensive, but not that much more than an E420.
> But either way. I am mostly curious as to why people hate Solaris so much,
> when I don't have any problems with it. Granted, we have a modest setup,
> with only about 250,000 e-mails transitting the e-mail server per day, but I
> haven't had to throw any serious hardware at it either. I guess if I'm
> happy, and my customers are happy, that's all that really counts, right? ;-)
As always, you should pick the correct tool for the job. Solaris does OK on
some things, but if I had a choice I'd almost always pick Linux or BSD over
it.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
