?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Scott Francis Baker


March 6th, 2003

"I used to sell furniture for a living. The trouble was, it was my own." - Les Dawson. @ 11:50 am

So the other day we purchased and installed a new mail server to allow us to expand our user base beyond what it is. Our current CPU (dual P2 450s) was starting to lag during heavy load. We picked up a Dual Xeon 2.4 ghz, 2 gigs of ram, and a RAID-1 SCSI HD configuration. That thing is really starting to smoke. I'm really suprised at the shear amount of AppleTalk traffic it's pushing now.

AppleTalk Throughput Test v1.4b
Source [Mail]: Mail
Destintation: WebServer

Beginning Test
...........O.................oooOOOO..............O.....................
..................................................................o.....
................................o.......................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
..................

Test Completed in 33 seconds.
Maximum Bandwidth Throughput: 81.54 mbps
Average Bandwidth Throughput: 35.71 mbps
Data Loss: 0.02%
Average CPU Usage: 4%


That's at least 4 times what the previous server was getting. This server is really smoking, I'm really digging it!
 
Share  |  |

Comments

 
[User Picture Icon]
From:themabbi
Date:March 6th, 2003 12:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Looks pretty good...we're right in the middle of planning a remodel for one of our schools...it's mostly 10base right now. We were thinking of running 100base Cat5e, but now it looks like we're gonna go back to Appletalk. It's gonna be a lot cheaper, since the ESD already has a lot of the equipment from when they were running all Macintosh networks, and a lot of the infastructure is actually already in place. The whole building used to be wired for appletalk, and the backbone of that network is still in place. We just have to redo the drops in the rooms, and probably replace a few lines to some of the outlaying buildings.

I was a little skeptical at first, but from the numbers the ESD is showing me, we're gonna be looking at around a 15% increase in throughput if we go appletalk rather than IP due to appletalk's efficiancy. And the cost of replacing our existing network is going to be an order of magnitude cheaper than if we went with ethernet. Apparently Microsoft is moving away from it (I guess Win2K is the last MS OS that will support it), but that's fine with me...we're switching over almost all of our opperation to Linux, which has excellent Appletalk support built in. Not the first time MS has moved away from a superior technology just because they couldn't control it.
[User Picture Icon]
From:muerte
Date:March 6th, 2003 01:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Andrew pointed me to an article that stated XP/.NET server will still have AppleTalk support. It just won't be in the clients anyway. They don't need apple talk, it's probably overkill for them anyway.
(no subject) - (Anonymous)
[User Picture Icon]
From:muerte
Date:March 6th, 2003 01:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ok... I wish I still had the article that states that two similar networks, pushing the same data around were almost 25% faster using AppleTalk versus IP. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. Basically, AppleTalk is a chatty protocol because it does some simple redunant route checking, as well as traffic shaping. So it will generate some traffic, but it's offset by the amount of traffic you'll be saving just by using AppleTalk.

I'm not recommending the use of AppleTalk for the Internet, strictly for back end networks. The Internet isn't ready for AppleTalk yet, it's not mature enough. I highly recommend it for backend networks as it's extremely configurable and speedy. We use AppleTalk for everything from the router back. IP on the router, then the router converts all that to AppleTalk to get to my equipment. We're seeing huge throughput increases... across the board!

Here is a really good Cisco document about using AppleTalk on your Cisco router.

Scott Francis Baker