Billy Verreynne wrote:
> Billy said:
> > > But even Unix TCP/IP do not always respond as it should - what about
> >> SYN stealth scans?
TCP-Wrapper logs stealth scans. It comes along with LINUX, e.g. (tnx to
ike this is going to degrade in another o/s flame war.. :-)
> > hundreds of users isn't high volume. more imporatantly, hundreds
> > of users with what expectation of response time? I would expect
> > sub-second (200ms) worst case response time for a production
> > DB engine with so low a load.
Use SQL-Server 6.5 with read-write, and you'll see that there will be
a big decrease in speed, due to problems with locking. For read only
it's ok, but a lot slower than adabas for LINUX and large databases
adabas is at 100$ unlimited !!!!!
> > I would argue that NT still has much more flak to go as fortune 1000
> > companies start trying to take it out of pilot and into production for
> > certain 'mission critical' applications.
Ohno, mission critical does mean changing the config of one application
without disturbing the other. How do you get this managed with NT ?
> and _has_ proved to be robust and stable enough.
Yes. Remember WINNUKE. I know, many companies hat to invest into a
firewall (WWW), just because patches for german version came much
too late. With linux we had them 3 hours later (tnx to Allen Cox)
Even american versions came much too late. NT service is really bad.
So with mission critical and NT there is nogo with me
cu, Guido Stepken