Content area
The technology used in today's corporate network environment grew up during the past decade-and a number of network operating systems products, now in their figurative adolescence, stand ready to put their newfound maturity to the test. Some are staking market territory by trying to push into the Fortune 500 community; some are eyeing niches previously considered the domain of other products.
Ten years ago, everyone knew which products filled which need-Novell NetWare solved the problem of workgroup file and print sharing; Unix/RISC systems and proprietary minicomputers were stalwarts of the middle tier; and mainframes tackled the large, batch-processing duties. The distinctions are less obvious now: Low-end products aspire to be "enterprise" solutions, while midrange Unix systems try to reach lower down. For now, no single NOS platform will satisfy all the needs of the heterogeneous networks housed in corporations, and the cost of deploying a distributed network will increase. This is partly because network operating systems are being installed in large, enterprise environments that are testing NOS limits. In addition, the cost of integration between once-disconnected systems is rising.
In 1992, we found that client support and file and print performance were among the most desirable NOS features. They're still important, of course, but they no longer warrant much fanfare: Microsoft Corp. owns the majority of the corporate desktop market and has solved many client-support issues along the way; among the major players, file and print performance outputs lands within 10 percent of each other. This can be attributed to the incredible increase in hardware performance that has occurred over the past four years, courtesy of technologies such as 100-Mbps Ethernet, the Pentium Pro processor, Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) and, more recently, fast and cheap RAM.
Scalability, enterprise networking, interoperability and security top today's hot features list. These features answer some of the challenges that corporate computing will face in 1997, including:
- Providing seamless access to resources on disparate computing platforms, including NetWare/IntranetWare, NT Server, OS/2 Warp Server, Unix and mainframes via TCP/IP and other "standards-based" technology, because the reality is that the multiple NOS environment is here to stay;
- Integrating and synchronizing information in two or more directory/name services, whether with application-based directories or as separate products;
- Understanding the role of the "thin" client and realizing the cost benefits associated with it; and
- Getting the various products and technologies to work as advertised, and making sure vendors deliver on their published promises.
To evaluate whether the leading network operating systems support these features, we tested Microsoft's Windows NT Server 4.0, Novell's IntranetWare, IBM Corp.'s OS/2 Warp Server SMP 4.0 and SunSoft's Solaris 2.5.1. Banyan was not included, because we did not feel that companies view VINES as a NOS.
As the hype surrounding the Internet, intranets and the World Wide Web settles down, network managers will confront issues such as how to authenticate not only users, but also Java applets and ActiveX components; version control; and integrating Web front ends to all existing mail, file, print and database applications. We see a trend toward the provision of "services" on the network that can run on any of the platforms we tested. In addition, Banyan Systems' StreetTalk now is available on NT, Novell has ported its Novell Directory Services (NDS) to run on The Santa Cruz Operation's SCO Unix and Hewlett-Packard Co.'s HP-UX, and the rumor mills indicate that a version of NDS on SunSoft Solaris 2.5.x and NT will arrive in 1997.
There are Web- and other Internet-related services available on almost every platform. Microsoft's Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM), its distributed object technology, is being ported by third parties to Solaris and will be available on other platforms, including MVS and Digital Unix 4.0. The glue that binds these different systems will become more important, and vendors will find it more difficult to dictate the direction of these technologies.
From an implementation perspective, corporations will deploy a variety of operating systems, with each performing the functions it does best. Large-scale database applications-such as data warehousing, online analytical processing (OLAP), online transaction processing (OLTP) and data mining-will continue to be developed and run on Unix platforms, because of a combination of extensive third-party support and Unix's scalability.
Another trend we see taking shape in NOSes and across distributed computing in general is the "Webification" of these platforms. But we don't believe this will become an effective mechanism by which users will access applications, data and resources on the network until enabling technologies such as ActiveX or Java mature and become more prevalent. (Even now, when we attempt to load certain Java applets, our Netscape browser fails.)
For instance, Microsoft offers an Internet Server Application Programming Interface (ISAPI)-based application for managing an NT Server via a standard Web browser, but its functionality is limited and the interface is awkward and slow at best (and requires Microsoft's Internet Information Server {ISS} Web server).
So where are NOSes heading? When we at Network Computing look into our crystal ball, we see the following:
- IBM's OS/2 Warp Server will become even less of a player in the LAN market. But it should continue to be used as a low-end platform for IBM-centric solutions, given the recent introduction of the Distributed Computing Environment (DCE) on Warp Server via IBM's Directory and Security Server (DSS), which provides a common method of interplatform communication and integration via DCE.
- Banyan will concentrate on StreetTalk and move away from positioning VINES 7.0 as a general-purpose operating system. StreetTalk on NT, NetWare and Unix has a greater chance of success than does VINES 7.0 and it could mount significant competition against Novell's NDS.
- Unix will continue to dominate medium- to large-scale computing environments. But companies such as Sun Microsystems definitely see Microsoft on their radar screen.
- NT will gain market share-not because of any superior networking and client/server technology but rather because of Microsoft's ability to present a whole-product solution and its strong presence in the market. In addition, Microsoft will continue to transform once-proprietary solutions, such as clustering, into market commodities.
Novell IntranetWare
Four years ago, Novell introduced NetWare 4.0 and NDS (then called NetWare Directory Services), clearly expecting that if it built it, everyone would come; but the rate of adoption of NDS was very slow. At the time, NDS represented a different computing paradigm and a different strategic positioning for the NOS in the enterprise than what NetWare 3.x users were accustomed to. Despite Novell's strong push of NDS and IntranetWare, NetWare 3.x is still prevalent in the corporate enterprise.
At the heart of IntranetWare is NDS, Novell's X.500-like directory service that's used as a single repository of information about users, groups, applications and access control on objects on the network. NDS, like other directory services, is a fully distributed, replicated directory service. When working with NDS, one sees its strong potential. Its functionality, such as the NetWare Application Launcher (NAL), shows the real benefit of a directory service. With NAL, applications can be made available to users based on their rights to the application object. Both the application and the user are objects within NDS and can be managed from a single utility.
NDS is not without its shortcomings. It should operate faster, and its containers holding thousands of objects experience stability and performance problems. Also, until recently, NDS ran only on NetWare 4.x. Other directory services offer a secondary repository that's used to improve data lookup time. Banyan's StreetTalk has a product called StreetTalk Directory Assistance (STDA) that uses indexed, flat files. Novell also is considering offering a similar product, called Catalog, but it won't be available anytime soon.
Additionally, the management of NDS is not simply plug and play. To start, NDS introduces terms and planning considerations that standalone operating systems don't face-that's the cost of an enterprise solution. Also, NDS uses partitions-parts of the NDS tree that reside on different servers. Partitioning the NDS tree correctly facilitates data redundancy and performance improvements, since users can access NDS information on their local network. But this adds the complexity of managing not only the servers but the partitions as well. Novell has made management of NDS partitions easier, but more work needs to be done in this area.
One of Novell's biggest hurdles has been its inability to get ISVs to jump on the NDS bandwagon and fully exploit the capabilities of NDS. This can be traced to several events. First, customers did not implement NDS right away and Novell was not as aggressive in selling NDS as a viable solution as it should have been. In addition, NetWare 4.0 was not as complete as it could have been. Compared with Microsoft's and IBM's domain technologies, NDS is quite superior. Although Banyan's StreetTalk competes on a technical level, StreetTalk really hasn't taken off.
Even more frustrating, Novell has not been able to make its own applications fully NDS-aware. GroupWise, Novell's flagship messaging product, has only the most basic integration with NDS, and maintains a secondary directory of its own for performance reasons. Only now are we seeing products and technology that exploit NDS. For example, Novell has released a beta version of its Replication Services, which takes advantage of the directory to replicate files and directories between servers.
Novell's Network Application Launcher/Network Application Manager (NAL/NAM) makes applications available from a user's desktop. NAL is the client application and NAM is the tool used by administrators to create application objects and set permissions. Windows 3.1, Windows95 and NT are the only clients currently supported, but these represent the lion's share of the desktop market. Novell has indicated that NAL might become available on other platforms when there is sufficient user demand. What is exciting about NAL is that configuration is not required on the client side, beyond running the NAL program. NAL is an effective application delivery mechanism that utilizes NDS.
Besides NDS, IntranetWare includes a variety of other applications/services. IntranetWare consists of several once-separate products. There's Novell's WebServer 2.5, NetWare/IP, a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)/BOOTP server and an IP/IPX gateway. In addition, there is a Multiprotocol Router (MPR) that can support a variety of WAN connections, such as frame relay, ISDN, leased lines and ATM. We don't see many corporations deploying IntranetWare as a replacement for their dedicated WAN equipment (such as Cisco Systems or Bay Networks routers), but it can provide a reasonable platform for small remote offices or small companies that wish to save the cost of a dedicated router.
These tools are especially useful services for companies just getting on the Internet/intranet information highway and they make IntranetWare a great value. The IP/IPX gateway allows for access to IP-based resources, such as Web or FTP servers by clients that have only the IPX protocol stack loaded. However, a new version of the WinSock application must be loaded that allows for communication over IPX. In a rudimentary way, the gateway acts as a firewall, since IP packets never run on the IPX network. Further integration of these tools with NDS would be helpful so that management could be handled by NDS Manager.
To round out its Internet appeal, IntranetWare supports NetBasic and Perl scripting. In addition, its WebServer makes use of the security of NDS but to a limited extent. Novell has stated that IntranetWare eventually will support the Java Virtual Machine, allowing for Java programs to run on the server.
What separates IntranetWare from OS/2? Speed to process I/O is the key. Since most server processes run at Ring 0, it's fast and efficient. While IntranetWare's efficiency makes it suitable as a Web server or file/print server, it also makes it vulnerable to system instability. A poorly written NetWare Loadable Module (NLM) can easily bring down the server. IntranetWare also lacks any virtual memory mechanism that allows data and programs to be swapped in and out of memory to the hard disk. Without virtual memory, when all the memory in the server is used, there is nowhere else to turn. As a result, few companies are looking at IntranetWare as the platform to host their mission-critical applications. This remains a substantial problem with NetWare that must be addressed.
A major complaint about previous versions of NetWare is it has not been an internetwork-friendly operating system-especially if one of the networks uses the Service Advertising Protocol (SAP) to publicize the various services on the network. In small networks, SAP traffic is not a problem, but in larger corporations with 300 or 400 servers, SAP broadcasts (which occur every 60 seconds) bog down routers and use precious WAN bandwidth.
To make IntranetWare more WAN-friendly, Novell has included NetWare/IP 1.2, which nearly eliminates SAP traffic in a NetWare environment. It can be deployed so that clients can communicate with the NetWare server via IP (IPX is still in the IP header, though), or help servers communicate with each other, reducing the number of SAP packets on the network. For most companies, SAP traffic will not be eliminated entirely, because other network services, such as print servers and backup servers, use the SAP mechanism to broadcast their services on the network.
Novell is also in the very early stages of a full IP implementation of NetWare, which will mean that all communications to the server will be over IP. Additionally, IntranetWare supports Novell's NetWare Link Services Protocol (NLSP) routing protocol, which allows for the routing tables to be updated only when a change occurs (unlike the Routing Information Protocol {RIP}, which forces each router to exchange the entire routing table). But many applications and devices, such as network printers, still use SAP. In addition, Microsoft's NT does not support NLSP, so by implementing NLSP, you make the IntranetWare network invisible to NT systems.
We see IntranetWare as a good server for large workgroups or departmental file and print services because of its speed, robust compression facility, ability to provide disk quotas and large existing base of office-automation applications. IntranetWare can be an adequate platform for smaller-scale application hosting, such as a workgroup's Oracle database or Lotus Notes database, if you get lucky and your application has been ported to NetWare. In addition, its lower hardware requirement will make it popular with organizations that do not have the financial resources to upgrade their servers to the level that NT needs.
IntranetWare will face serious competition in the intranet market, but we see NDS having a strong potential if it can be ported to operating systems such as NT or any flavor of Unix. By going to these other platforms, NDS can be a part of a corporation's enterprise network. Novell's lack of action in the past several years allowed Microsoft to take a stronghold in large corporations.
SunSoft Solaris 2.5.1
Solaris 2.5.1 is the latest version of SunSoft's Unix enterprise operating system. Corporations have been basing their large-scale and intranet (before intranets became trendy) applications on it for years. The latest upgrade offers several enhancements, including improved support for UltraSPARC servers, a substantial increase of user IDs (UIDs) and an increase in performance for the x86 version of Solaris-that will be of interest to corporations.
Unlike Microsoft and Novell-which have moved to embrace a standards-based computing model by adopting the Internet and TCP/IP-Solaris, like Unix in general, was born and raised on TCP/IP and nurtured on the Internet. Anyone doing serious Internet computing (such as Web hosting) or large-scale application hosting knows that Unix is the way to go-no ifs, ands or buts. Terabyte-size databases and large-transaction volumes, though not very common, also are up Unix's alley. As far as mainframes are concerned, existing applications will be kept there, but for new applications, Solaris will be the platform of choice.
But you won't see Unix treading on the low-end file and print and application market, where traditional LAN operating systems prevail-Unix is still too difficult to install and maintain. Because Unix was written by programmers for programmers, it provides the facilities to develop large applications, but is difficult to use. For example, we've yet to see a completely functional front end for Unix administration. This prevents it from becoming a mainstream operating system and leaves the door wide open for easier-to-use NOSes such IntranetWare and NT Server.
But Solaris provides a very scalable platform because of its preemptive, multithreaded operating system, its support for clustering and its extreme flexibility to customize and control every aspect of a system. Combined with Sun's newest UltraSPARC servers, Solaris is a platform suitable for running enterprisewide client/server applications.
The most current Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC-C) benchmark results showed that the 11 systems with the highest throughputs all ran some version of Unix. A SunSoft Solaris 2.5.1 had the seventh-highest throughput (with 11,465.93 transactions per minute, at a cost of $2,152,154). A Digital Equipment Corp. AlphaServer 8400 had the top score (30,390.00 transactions per minute), but it costs more than $9 million. It is interesting to note that a Microsoft NT 4.0 server running on a ProLiant 5000 generated a throughput of 6,842.70 transactions per minute but costs $681,754. We also found it interesting that of the 95 systems listed in the TPC-C results as of October 25, none had OS/2, IntranetWare or VINES as an operating system.
To overcome the ease-of-use problem, Sun is promoting the Java Management API, which extends the ability to manage a Sun or other system remotely from any platform that supports Java. However, a poorly designed management interface written in Java is no better than a poorly designed X Window or command-line interface. To moderate Unix's ease-of-use stigma, Sun Solaris supports the Common Desktop Environment (CDE), which provides a common GUI. Even so, many Unix administrators will find that using the command line and custom scripts will be the fastest, most effective way to manage their servers. And with built-in support for telnet and console redirection via the serial port, management can be performed remotely from anywhere in the world. Try doing that with an NT or OS/2 machine.
A bigger stumbling block, however, is Unix's inability to be integrated with NT, NetWare, OS/2 and other non-Unix platforms. Out of the box, Unix does a poor job of solving the interoperability problem that many corporations face.
Yet third-party or add-on products from Sun can provide access to the file system on Solaris from a Server Message Block (SMB)-based network (such as Microsoft or LAN Manager/LAN Server networks), NetWare NCP access or access from Apple Macintosh clients. These solutions put the burden of connectivity on the server, eliminating the need to install additional software on clients.
An alternate solution is to place the Network File System (NFS) protocol on clients, but this introduces an entirely new set of problems, such as memory use on DOS/Windows workstations. These add-on products are workgroup-type solutions-they work, but they don't scale very well. Sun is promoting its Web-NFS technology as the common mechanism for accessing files across the Internet-but given that NT Server, IntranetWare and Warp Server do not bundle an NFS server on their platforms, there is little likelihood of Web-NFS taking off right away.
One of the biggest advantages of Unix is the way it can be customized to implement whatever technology the client wishes. If a DCE-based network is called for, DCE can be found on the major platforms. If NIS or NIS+ is needed, it also can be utilized.
Unix has a strong background in directory services and Sun's current offering is NIS+, which provides for a distributed, hierarchical name space (see "The Functions of a Viable Directory Service," page 64). We see NDS offering strong competition for NIS+, though, since NDS is maturing and has acquired recent support for additional platforms.
Of course, most high-end Unix systems are designed around RISC systems, which are frequently much more expensive than the Intel Corp. microprocessor-based PC platforms used by the other NOSes. But that's not to say they've ignored the price/performance edge that Intel-based hardware enjoys. To capitalize on the price/performance advantage of Intel-based systems, Sun offers Solaris x86, which joins other Intel-based versions of Unix, such as SCO's OpenServer.
These platforms share the same benefits of price/performance and increased server hardware selection as RISC Unix systems, but we found them to be more difficult to install than other Intel-based NOSes, such as NT Server and NetWare. There also is less support from hardware vendors, which always seem to have drivers for NT Server and NetWare, but not for Unix or even VINES and Warp Server because of the market share that the former platforms enjoy and the momentum that exists for them.
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0
NT Server 4.0 is Microsoft's latest version of its network operating system. Although 4.0 provides some additional functionality and features, it does not address the real enterprise networking issues that face corporations rolling out NT into their environments. Despite these shortcomings, NT will continue its growth trend and gain popularity.
Two key assets of NT are its ease of setup and its GUI. The installation process is fairly smooth, and allows easier integration of third-party drivers into the installation process than is possible with Warp Server, for instance. No manual editing of CONFIG.SYS or other text files is required, nor is it necessary to add and remove device drivers on installation disks, as must done with Warp Server. Most parameters that need to be set can be done via the GUI; unfortunately, all too often changing a setting means having to go into the NT registry (just as with OS/2 and Unix, though NT's implementation is much more complete). NT does a good job with its administration tools here but still requires tweaks with server configuration files and clients. It's a double-edged sword: You can gain access to a wealth of settings, but one wrong change can permanently disable your server.
Although a common interface across a product line is good, the new interface is not the best thing since sliced bread, as Microsoft makes it out to be. During our testing, we found the OS/2 workplace shell to be just as functional and, in several instances, the NT 4.0 GUI was not as functional as Microsoft might wish. However, compared with the interface offered on Solaris and other Unix platforms, NT's GUI is very easy to use. Ease of use and installation become important issues as network operating systems become more common and the rate of turnover in corporations increases-the amount of time it takes to train administrator and support people is decreased.
To address the ease-of-use issue, NT supplies administration wizards but savvy NT administrators will find it easier to do things manually. However, we did discover the number of different utilities we had to use to manage our Macintosh clients annoying. Microsoft's forthcoming Slate product, which provides a common environment in which to manage not only NT Server but other Microsoft applications, will be a welcome addition. We know of several seasoned NT administrators who use the old 3.51 Windows File Manager instead of the new Explorer because File Manager offers more features in one utility and Explorer does not visually indicate an NT share.
Not surprisingly, many corporations with NT-based applications-particularly those that have selected Microsoft's Exchange and BackOffice-have indirectly chosen Microsoft NT Server 4.0 as their network operating system, because BackOffice and other Microsoft application offerings only run on NT. Though NT Server's services include file and print, applications hosting, directory services (in a very general sense) and access control/authentication, this NT-for-everything strategy has turned out to be less than ideal. NT does many things well-but its enterprise computing and directory services technology is weak, at best.
The problem lies in the fact that NT, like OS/2 (excluding OS/2's recent DCE-based DSS add-on product), is based on NetBIOS, which was never meant to be implemented on a large corporate network. NetBIOS can be implemented across several products, but its broadcast nature and poor scalability continue to be its downfall. It became popular because it's very easy for programmers to write to, but trying to implement a NetBIOS-based network is like looking for trouble. To implement NT, for example, a Windows Internet Name Service (WINS) server-a type of server that maps NetBIOS names to IP addresses-needs to be installed at every site. Some companies are finding that they need a full-time person just to manage the WINS server, rendering the goal of reducing network support staff by implementing NT, unrealistic.
Domains expose another flaw in NT Server and non-DSS Warp Server networks. Although Microsoft and IBM will tell you that these NOSes are working in large corporations, the fact is their domains do not scale well, are difficult to manage and provide limited functionality. We found it rather humorous that both vendors state in whitepapers that their domains are workgroup solutions, but until about a year and a half ago, Microsoft never referred to its domains as a directory service; yet domains are as much a directory service as is a file manager.
Compared to its traditional rival, NetWare, NT falls short in some areas. Disk quotas, for instance, must be provided by a third-party product. File compression is included in NT 4.0, but its implementation is not as complete as NetWare's; Warp Server is equally lacking in this regard by not providing any file compression. NT cannot be managed completely without installing a third-party remote-control package. With Warp Server, a remote-control program is provided in Tivoli Systems' TME 10 NetFinity Server 4.0 module that comes bundled with Warp Server. As Web-based administration tools become available and are added to NT, this should become less of an issue.
One of the roles that NT fulfills is that of application server. Many of the applications designed for Unix are being ported to NT. Although we see NT use as an application server increasing, we don't see NT becoming a true threat to the large, vital-business applications for several years. NT offers a compelling example of how to provide good performance at low cost.
NT is based on the Mach microkernel, but NT 4.0 has moved several critical components down to Ring 0, the most trusted level of operation in an Intel x86 architecture processor. This boosts performance-but at the expense of its reliability, which can become impaired by, say, an errant driver. NT is currently a 32-bit NOS, but a 64-bit version is expected in a year or so.
Sun is migrating to a full 64-bit operating system and Solaris 2.5.1 implements a 64-bit asynchronous I/O component, allowing for faster access to I/O devices by applications-great for high-capacity, high-transaction environments. Although NT does not have the best technology on the market, it does hold the favor of many independent software vendors (ISVs) and has the market presence needed to steer NT into corporations. Microsoft also provides complementary products that integrate well into NT Server, as well as Windows95 and, of course, future versions of Windows.
Integration and interoperability are areas where Microsoft has gained a lead over the other platforms. With its File and Print for NetWare program, an NT Server can appear on the network as a NetWare 3.x file server supporting the NCP protocol. This is not meant to be a replacement for a NetWare server, but is a tool for easing the migration from NetWare to NT. Microsoft also has DSM, which is another misnomer since DSM cannot manage a NetWare 4.1 network. Instead, it allows for the administration of NetWare 3.x bindery objects via the Microsoft Domain. On the NetWare side, a third-party product, Synchronicity for NT by NetVision, allows for the management of NT Domain objects, such as users and groups, from within NDS, providing a single point of administration.
IBM OS/2 Warp Server SMP 4.0
When evaluating Warp Server SMP 4.0, you must look at all the pieces bundled with it. This includes remote access via LAN Distance Connection Server, server and workstation management via SystemView and other added features.
Although Warp Server bundles a lot of functionality, the features are not fully integrated. Consider the NetWare requester, written by Novell, that is included. If you remove the NetWare requester, the device drivers will be left in the CONFIG.SYS, even though there is a central installation utility. When the server reboots, a series of system errors indicating that system drivers did not load will appear on the screen. The lack of integration also is apparent when installing LAN Distance Connection Server. We were surprised to discover that to create client installation disks, we first had to remove the LAN Distance Connection Server application. The indications were that the problem had something to do with the order in which drivers need to be loaded in the CONFIG.SYS-something we expected OS/2 to handle for us. This kind of thing doesn't happen when Microsoft's Remote Access Server (RAS) is added under NT.
However, Warp Server's utilities are more enhanced than NT's. The backup program for Warp Server is full-featured, offering compression and a scheduling mechanism, and allowing for the backup of data to local hard disk, network hard disk, tape or optical drive.
Operating system stability is a top concern for network designers. When you get OS/2 configured as you want it to be, it tends to be fairly stable. But from our experiences, the less you change, the better off you are. This stems from OS/2's lack of total system integration and intelligence. We found that when removing a component of the system, be it a protocol or application, OS/2 does not always make the necessary changes, forcing the user to manually edit multiple text files.
To be on par with NT and NetWare, OS/2 Warp Server has added symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) capabilities. Although the specifications state it can support up to 64 CPUs, OS/2, as well as NT and NetWare, top out at around four CPUs. In comparison, Solaris can take advantage of more than four CPUs.
OS/2 is built on solid technology, such as OpenDoc and System Object Model (SOM)/Distributed SOM (DSOM), but in this industry, the product with the best technology isn't always the one that wins. With Warp Server's technology and feature set, it could be an effective part of a distributed network, but that may not be enough to convince non-Warp Server environments to make the switch. Warp Server rounds out IBM's operating system offerings very well, giving IBM shops a fairly unified distributed computing strategy.
To help Warp Server move beyond the workgroup limits of its domain, IBM has implemented DCE on top of Warp Server, allowing for single logon and access control of resources anywhere on the DCE network. In addition, DCE can scale to the enterprise. IBM's implementation allows for an incremental migration of a LAN Server network to a DCE-based network, and lets the two coexist. DCE contains an open set of protocols so disparate operating systems can communicate and share a directory (see "DCE: Unifying Your Network Fabric," November 1, page 62).
It should come as no surprise that DCE functionality has been ported to Warp Server, since it's available on other IBM platforms-and a good many other platforms as well, though it's notably absent from NetWare. This makes DCE the common glue IBM can use to provide a complete, integrated solution. All is not smooth sailing with DCE, however. DCE is complicated, and its applications tend to be very vertical; and it's client-heavy, meaning it consumes quite a bit of the client-side resources. If you are running a desktop operating system, such as OS/2 Warp 4 or NT Workstation, this last problem won't be much of an issue since these platforms are not constrained by the conventional memory problems of DOS and Windows 3.x.
Warp Server is well-suited for an existing IBM shop, given its common DCE support across all platforms, plus enhanced support for OS/2 clients and advanced printing functionality. Apple Macintosh client support also is available via an add-on product called LAN Server for Macintosh. You'll find that all the GUI management tools are OS/2-based. Because OS/2 supports the SMB protocol used for file and print sharing, existing Windows networking clients can access shared resources on a Warp Server server. However, to get added functionality, such as public applications, you will need an enhanced requester. Currently, there is an enhanced Windows95 client but not an NT client.
Another feature that helps Warp Server fit into an existing IBM shop is its Print Services Facility (PSF/2). PSF/2 provides print data stream conversion, letting users from DOS, Windows, OS/2 and IBM AIX systems print to an IBM Advanced Function Printing (AFP) printer with their PostScript document, for example.
As with NT Server, OS/2 Warp Server's GUI is quite useful, once you get the hang of it. Until then, you might find it frustrating to use. We did. For example, in creating a file directory alias (a Share, in NT lingo), we entered the parameters incorrectly. We received an error message about this, but no indication of where the error was. So we spent the next 20 minutes blindly changing parameters in hope of finding the mistake. No luck. We decided to start over.
Can StreetTalk Keep Banyan Systems In The Running?
Banyan has a long history as a provider of directory services on its VINES platform, and has made its directory services available on other platforms, including NetWare, HP-UX, SCO Unix and SunSoft Solaris. But StreetTalk's best opportunity may lie in NT.
Unlike the NetWare Enterprise Network Services (ENS) product, StreetTalk on NT does not need VINES on the network. The marriage of NT Server, a popular application platform with the market momentum of a locomotive, and StreetTalk, an established directory service, could produce viable offspring. While Novell's NDS is slated to run on NT sometime in 1997, StreetTalk for NT already is here. Challenges to StreetTalk include the lack of ISV support and the fact that no Microsoft product, including Exchange and the other BackOffice products, is StreetTalk-aware.
In addition, StreetTalk will face competition from NDS, which has received more market attention and is not restricted to a three-level hierarchy. Any existing NetWare NDS shop will opt for NDS because it fits better into the existing infrastructure.
Jay Milne can be reached at [email protected].
Copyright 1996 CMP Media Inc.
(Copyright 1996 CMP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.)