Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba? 
Author Message
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

On Wednesday, Sun announced Project Cascade, a product that will
support NT file, print, authentication, and directory services.
Cascade is based on AT&T's Advanced Server, which I've heard Auspex
also uses.

The same day, Oracle leaked info about Oracle 8i, which will include an
Internet File System (iFS) that runs atop an Oracle engine.  (Formal
announcement Monday.)

These announcements didn't address one obvious question: what will be
these proprietary products' advantages over Samba running atop, say, Linux?
(Clearly Samba+Linux has a price advantage....)

CNET's article on Cascade, and Sun's PR:
http://www.***.com/ ,4,26154,00.html
http://www.***.com/

InfoWorld articles on Oracle 8i and iFS, by Paul Krill and Michael Vizard:
http://www.***.com/
http://www.***.com/

IFS home page:
(a shameless plug, but hey, we were there first!  :-)
http://www.***.com/ ~stott/ifs/

Samba home page:
http://www.***.com/

        A Microsoft official called any attempt by Oracle to position
        databases as an alternative to file systems "self-serving."
        -- Paul Krill in InfoWorld



Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:

>On Wednesday, Sun announced Project Cascade, a product that will
>support NT file, print, authentication, and directory services.
>Cascade is based on AT&T's Advanced Server, which I've heard Auspex
>also uses.
>The same day, Oracle leaked info about Oracle 8i, which will include an
>Internet File System (iFS) that runs atop an Oracle engine.  (Formal
>announcement Monday.)
>These announcements didn't address one obvious question: what will be
>these proprietary products' advantages over Samba running atop, say, Linux?
>(Clearly Samba+Linux has a price advantage....)

Well "project Cascade" right now is actually vaporware,
as the announcements state "early access copies will be
available within 60 days" - so I'd imagine a source code
tape from AS/U just landed on some poor Sun engineer's desk :-).

When they've finished it will have all the advantages (and
disadvantages) of AS/U however - it will be for all intents
and purposes a full PDC or BDC implementation. The downside
is - tied to Microsoft code, no future NT5.x access (see the news
reports on the AT&T AS/U lawsuit), client license fees, no
source code etc. etc.

Also, as all the filesystem meta-info with AS/U is kept in
a spare database there will be integrartion issues (no
integration with UNIX permissions) and (just as a guess)
it will be *dog* slow :-).

Of course, as I'm somewhat biased, all this must be taken
with a big dose of IMHO..... :-).

Cheers,

        Jeremy Allison,
        Samba Team.



Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?
Sun's Cascade product is far from vaporware and is currently being
benchmarked in effort to generate a sizing matrix. The sizing matrix
will give a rough estimate of how many NT servers can be consolidated
into a single, scalable UNIX server.
        As far as inheriting problems or proprietary, Cascade is built from
MicroSoft's defacto NT standards. And NT 5.0... let's talk about
vaporware... 35 million lines of it! But yes, NT 5.0 WILL be supported.
        And UNIX permissions? - Why would a Better NT Server relax it's
security for UNIX users to access files behind the sheets?
        I hope you're not a software developer for the Samba Team. Ashame to
think you get ALL of the details wrong.

IMHO   ;-)

Ciao
Wayne

Quote:

> Well "project Cascade" right now is actually vaporware,
> as the announcements state "early access copies will be
> available within 60 days" - so I'd imagine a source code
> tape from AS/U just landed on some poor Sun engineer's desk :-).

> When they've finished it will have all the advantages (and
> disadvantages) of AS/U however - it will be for all intents
> and purposes a full PDC or BDC implementation. The downside
> is - tied to Microsoft code, no future NT5.x access (see the news
> reports on the AT&T AS/U lawsuit), client license fees, no
> source code etc. etc.

> Also, as all the filesystem meta-info with AS/U is kept in
> a spare database there will be integrartion issues (no
> integration with UNIX permissions) and (just as a guess)
> it will be *dog* slow :-).



Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:

>These announcements didn't address one obvious question: what will be
>these proprietary products' advantages over Samba running atop, say, Linux?
>(Clearly Samba+Linux has a price advantage....)

Fully support of NT ACLs? Also Cascade provides more services such as PDC.

Some commercial implementation such as Syntax TAS uses kernel-level
implementation which should help boost performance under high load.

Supak

--
--
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:

>When they've finished it will have all the advantages (and
>disadvantages) of AS/U however - it will be for all intents
>and purposes a full PDC or BDC implementation. The downside
>is - tied to Microsoft code, no future NT5.x access (see the news
>reports on the AT&T AS/U lawsuit), client license fees, no
>source code etc. etc.
>Also, as all the filesystem meta-info with AS/U is kept in
>a spare database there will be integrartion issues (no
>integration with UNIX permissions) and (just as a guess)
>it will be *dog* slow :-).

If all you need is file service, look at Network Appliance filers
(http://www.netapp.com/) which supports NT and NFS natively.

The performance is great and the mix of ACL and Unix permissions are
smooth. The filer box can also be managed by NT tools.

If you need more services, jion Cascade early access. Even with all
the overhead you may get a better performance than the NT boxes
anyway plus you can consolidate many NT servers into 1 Sun.

Supak
--
--
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:

>Fully support of NT ACLs? Also Cascade provides more services such as PDC.

Funny you should mention ACL's - they're the next
thing I'm going to be coding into the Samba-2 tree :-).

The PDC stuff is harder though - although we're working on it :-).

Quote:
>Some commercial implementation such as Syntax TAS uses kernel-level
>implementation which should help boost performance under high load.

Syntax TAS is a *user* level implementation, just like
Samba. The only part of TAS in the kernel are
the streams drivers for things like AppleTalk
and NetWare.

And dont talk about TAS performace under load, you
obviously haven't run any benchmarks :-).

Cheers,

        Jeremy Allison,
        Samba Team.



Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:
>Sun's Cascade product is far from vaporware

Oh good - please tell me where I can buy it then ?
I'd love to get a *shipping* copy to do benchmarks against
Samba.

Quote:
> and is currently being
>benchmarked in effort to generate a sizing matrix. The sizing matrix
>will give a rough estimate of how many NT servers can be consolidated
>into a single, scalable UNIX server.

I know personally the Sun people who will be benchmarking
Cascade. Wait until it's a real product before you say anything.

Quote:
>    As far as inheriting problems or proprietary, Cascade is built from
>MicroSoft's defacto NT standards. And NT 5.0... let's talk about
>vaporware... 35 million lines of it! But yes, NT 5.0 WILL be supported.

Let's just examine this one shall we :

"As far as inheriting problems or proprietary, Cascade is built
from MicroSoft's defacto NT standards."

Look up the dictionary definition of "proprietary".

Quote:
> But yes, NT 5.0 WILL be supported.

How - no access to NT5.0 source code. See:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2128350...

for details. Now I'm not claiming that Samba will
have an easier job of it, but to claim you will
just magically "Be NT5.x compatible " is just
silly.

Quote:
>    And UNIX permissions? - Why would a Better NT Server relax it's
>security for UNIX users to access files behind the sheets?

Ah - now I *know* you don't know what you're
talking about. :-).

Quote:
>    I hope you're not a software developer for the Samba Team. Ashame to
>think you get ALL of the details wrong.

I have been working on the SMB protocol for over 5
years. I have implemented large parts of Samba functionality.

And I can spot marketing 'droids who are just repeating
a press release a *mile* away :-) :-).

Cheers,

        Jeremy Allison,
        Samba Team.



Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:


> >On Wednesday, Sun announced Project Cascade, a product that will
> >support NT file, print, authentication, and directory services.
> >Cascade is based on AT&T's Advanced Server, which I've heard Auspex
> >also uses.

> >The same day, Oracle leaked info about Oracle 8i, which will include an
> >Internet File System (iFS) that runs atop an Oracle engine.  (Formal
> >announcement Monday.)

> >These announcements didn't address one obvious question: what will be
> >these proprietary products' advantages over Samba running atop, say, Linux?
> >(Clearly Samba+Linux has a price advantage....)

> Well "project Cascade" right now is actually vaporware,
> as the announcements state "early access copies will be
> available within 60 days" - so I'd imagine a source code
> tape from AS/U just landed on some poor Sun engineer's desk :-).

Isn't this just the same AT&T code as used by "all the other UNIX
vendors" (eg "Advanced server for Digital UNIX" et al)?

I paid for and ran the previous version of this on Digital UNIX (when
it was called Pathworks v6 - based on NT 3.51 code, I think).
After a while I dumped it and switched to samba.

Why...? Well PW6 was more like a virtual NT server running within UNIX,
and was managed in exactly the same way as an NT server. I didn't find it
easy to let people access the same files from unix and NT (eg access to
your unix home directories from windows). I found it hard to manage
compared to samba (perhaps a cultural thing) and also more flakey than
samba (it crashed at least once losing all filesystem meta-info).

Graham Allan
Physics, university of Minnesota



Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

: >Fully support of NT ACLs? Also Cascade provides more services such as PDC.

: Funny you should mention ACL's - they're the next
: thing I'm going to be coding into the Samba-2 tree :-).

If Cascade does NT file level ACL's then we will look at it
carefully.

We bought our current NT server mainly because the NT people wanted
file level ACLs and none of the Unix packages offering NT file
serving included file level ACLs.

Jon



Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:

> We bought our current NT server mainly because the NT people wanted
> file level ACLs and none of the Unix packages offering NT file
> serving included file level ACLs.

        It's probably true that a file with acls set
        properly will be honored by ANY server running
        on unix.

        On Solaris, a file foo (-rw-r--r--)
        is readable by the ``nobody'' user, unlesss
        you say
$ setfacl  -m user:nobody:--- foo
        then it's permissions are:
$ getfacl foo
-rw-r--r--+  1 davecb   staff          0 Sep 16 09:27 foo

# file: foo
# owner: davecb
# group: staff
user::rw-
user:nobody:---         #effective:---
group::r--              #effective:r--
mask:r--
other:r--

        Samba can't set the ACLs: I suspect
        it honors them, because it doesn't have
        much choice.  

        The converse may not be true: you may
        nt be able to weaken the restrictions
        set by chmod via ACLs.

--dave
--
David Collier-Brown,  | Cherish your enemies.  They're harder to
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | come by than friends and more motivated.

N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb



Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?
: > We bought our current NT server mainly because the NT people wanted
: > file level ACLs and none of the Unix packages offering NT file
: > serving included file level ACLs.

:       It's probably true that a file with acls set
:       properly will be honored by ANY server running
:       on unix.

As far as our PC people were concerned, a Unix server would only
be acceptable if the handling of file level ACLs was >95% identical
to an NT server from the point of view of their users.

At the time, none of the NT servers for Unix supported the NT
protocols for file level ACLs even if they were running on a Unix
box which did support file level ACLs.

Jon



Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:

>If Cascade does NT file level ACL's then we will look at it
>carefully.

Yes but the problem is that the NT acls in ASU/Cascade are stored
in a sparse database which (I believe) has no real relation to the
UNIX permissions actually stored in the file system
meta-info. This works great if all you're doing is serving
files to NT clients, but isn't so good if you've actually
got a multi-protocol environment where UNIX users need
access also.

Cheers,

        Jeremy Allison.
        Samba Team.



Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:



>: >Fully support of NT ACLs? Also Cascade provides more services such as PDC.
>: Funny you should mention ACL's - they're the next
>: thing I'm going to be coding into the Samba-2 tree :-).
>If Cascade does NT file level ACL's then we will look at it
>carefully.

Then I recommend you look closely at NetApp filers.

I tested it and it does a good job supporting both UNIX and NT
(including ACLs) rather seemlessly.

Supak

Quote:
>We bought our current NT server mainly because the NT people wanted
>file level ACLs and none of the Unix packages offering NT file
>serving included file level ACLs.
>Jon

--
--
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Mon, 05 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 Project Cascade vs Oracle 8i vs Samba?

Quote:




> >: >Fully support of NT ACLs? Also Cascade provides more services
> >: >such as PDC.

> >: Funny you should mention ACL's - they're the next
> >: thing I'm going to be coding into the Samba-2 tree :-).

> >If Cascade does NT file level ACL's then we will look at it
> >carefully.

> Then I recommend you look closely at NetApp filers.

> I tested it and it does a good job supporting both UNIX and NT
> (including ACLs) rather seemlessly.

Not quite.

We have the same problem on our Auspicies and NetApp: if you
change the permissions on the UNIX side, it clobbers the NT
permissions.  Same deal the other way around.  The permissions
work Ok if one of them is set up for some sort of "global user."

Thankfully, I am not working on that project at all, but I do
know that our NetApp guy has been in a couple of times working
on it.  (His solutions, so far, haven't even come close to our
requirements.)

Before you flame/etc...  I run the Suns and the UNIX servers
in the office and do not do anything with the NT systems right
now.  I do not know any more details of the problem that we
are having.   Thank you.  :)

--

radix.net



Tue, 06 Mar 2001 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 20 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. HELP: Oracle 8i vs 9i vs MS SQL 2000

2. Oracle 8i Standard vs. Oracle 8i Enterprise edition

3. Sql Server vs Oracle vs Ibm vs....

4. PostgreSQL vs Oracle vs DB2 vs MySQL - Which

5. PostgreSQL vs Oracle vs DB2 vs MySQL - Which should

6. PostgreSQL vs Oracle vs DB2 vs MySQL - Which should

7. PostgreSQL vs Oracle vs DB2 vs MySQL - Which sh

8. Access vs SQL Server vs Sybase vs Oracle

9. Oracle vs SQL Server vs Informix vs Sybase

10. MySQL vs Oracle vs MSSQL Vs others

11. Oracle vs PostgreSQL vs MySQL vs mSQL : COMPARISON

12. Access vs Approach vs Paradox vs FilePro vs Filemaker Pro


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software