SUMMARY : But is Solaris the correct platform ? (webserver: which is the best ?)

From: chas (
Date: Tue Apr 07 1998 - 14:55:22 CDT

First of all, I must apologise for posting for the original
question "is solaris the correct platform ?" since I received
a reminder (in the form of a copy of the FAQ) that this is
not an appropriate question.

Actually, I initially tagged the question onto the end of my
other post (regarding Netscape 2.0 hanging) but it looked too
long so I decided to post them separately. At the time of
posting I was preparing one of my spare Digital Unix boxes
to take over if I couldn't solve the problem I was suffering
- I gave myself an hour to fix it. Fortunately the problem was

Anyway, for those who care, I got some great replies which
1. confirmed my suspicions of the Solaris inetd.
2. make me feel more confident about using the sunbox for
   other purposes wherever possible.

Many thanks to the following :


From: "Robert G. Ferrell" <>
Subject: Re: But is Solaris the correct platform ? (webserver: which is
  the best ?)

At 04:55 PM 4/3/98 +0800, you wrote:
>is Solaris really the
>platform to choose for webservers ?
>Our Digital Unix servers have behaved flawlessly

I've run Unix Webservers for almost 5 years, and in my opinion Digitals
(1000, 3000, etc.) are the superior machines. Sparcs are good little
servers, but quite frankly I've found that the tcpd and inetd in the
OSF/1-based Digital Unix is just better all around than the ones in
Solaris. DEC Unix 4 is excellent, and very robust. Go with the DEC and
leave Solaris for the file server.



From: Sean Ward <>

Hi Chas. My opinion on webservice would be to get a PC running Linux and
Apache as the web server software. This would be especially true if cost is
issue. Both Linux and Apache are free, and the average PC costs less than the
average Sun. Plus all the major applications needed to provide
webservice/dns/mail have been ported to Linux. I've also found the usenet
groups devoted to Linux (comp.os.linux.*) are very helpful, and the Linux
development community is very quick to release patches.


rom: (Birger Wathne)

One of my customers has decided to drop Digital Unix completely as
a server platform, as we have had several instances of file system
corruption in advfs, data corruption in HSM, hangs in the legato
backup from DEC, etc. And DEC's support is really bad. We have yet to get
any proper explanations for the file system (rather domain) corruption
we have seen several times. We suspect that we have to run newfs
on all file systems and restore all data to be safe. But each domain is
at least 40 - 60 GB, so it would take a day or two for each domain.
We can't live without the data for that long, so the solution may be to
transfer the data to a new server (Propably Sun).

I work for the Sun distributor in Norway, so I'm biased, but I really
hate DEC support. Whenever we have a new problem, we know what DEC's
response will be. If they have a patch it's a well known problem.
If they don't have a patch yet, they will pretend it's the first
time they have heard about the problem.

I guess they suffer from lack of openness (just look at the Sun bug
database on
the SunSolve CD's distributed to all contract customers) and the fact that
some of their best people (at least in norway) have left for other

I agree that the hardware is fast, but the operating system is a few steps
behind Solaris, and DEC's focus on Unix is not too well defined, is it?

(Perhaps Linux on alpha is a better choise than DU?)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:12:36 CDT