Is there any advantage or disadvantage to going from D3 Linux to D3
Windows?


Thanks,
Danny

"ddspell-m3" wrote:
I might be forgetting something but here's my view:

Both platforms are equally capable but D3 NT (Windows) does support
RPC calls which are not supported in *nix. This is only of value if
you're using the D3 Class Library, which IMO shouldn't be used anymore
now that there are much more capable connectivity solutions available.

For personal use it can't be easier to use D3NT right on the same
system you use for everything else - no need to fire up a separate
box/OS just for the database.

Many sites have migrated from D3 NT to D3 Linux for reasons including
the following:
- stability
- conflicts between the VME and FSI
- indexing issues in the FSI
- file pointer caching issues in the FSI
- frame loss in the VME
- issues with sockets

I believe D3NT v7.5 addresses some or all of these concerns, so the
choice of platform is largely philosophical or dependent on your
site-specific needs.

D3 Linux also supports rebuilding the D3 executable to include custom
functionality (linking in new functionality into BASIC, much like is
done in jBASE or OpenQM). D3NT technically supports this as well but
I don't think anyone does it. There isn't enough documentation or
warm fuzzies to feel good about doing this sort of thing. If anyone
has done this with D3NT I'd like to trade notes.

D3 *nix also supports user-written assembler modes. I've seen docs
that make it seem like D3NT could as well but I don't know anyone who
has done this successfully. Mark?


Does that help?
T

Thanks Tony. What about performance? Which O/S would help D3 achieve
better performance?

Tony Gravagno wrote:

I haven't compared platform performance in years. No DBMS operates in
a vacuum. Factors that affect performance include:
-CPU
-RAM allocation
-whether you're running D3 Linux in the file system or in raw volumes
-disk fragmentation in NT
-other OS services and user activities running in addition to D3

All things being equal, my instinct says D3Linux would be a faster
platform. Then again, I don't know if there are optimizations that
I'm unaware of which would allow D3NT to run faster over Win2003. I
tend to think of D3NT as being a platform of convenience because it's
on the same system as many Windows utilities that I tend to integrate
with, and I don't need to have another OS running just to support the
DBMS. D3NT can be upgraded on the same OS year after year without
changing the OS, whereas D3Linux is built over specific kernels so the
OS must be completely reinstalled on an almost yearly basis - that's
painful.

Let's back up. What is it that you need to do?
- Are you doing development on a PC?
- Are you supporting a local office of 20 users?
- Are you supporting an extranet with 200 users?
- Are you supporting an internet site with hundreds or thousands of
people requiring near simultaneous access?
- Do you find yourself creating and deleting a lot of ad-hoc files and
accounts or is the environment fairly stable.
- How much data in GB are we talking about?
- Do you write communications tools in C, VB, Perl, or other
languages?
- Are you philosophically a Linux guy? Do you prefer Apache to IIS or
have any other political reasons to swing toward one platform or away
fom another? This is quite often the determining factor, not the
technology itself.

It's always better to approach technology from the business
perspective. It's like a carpenter saying he needs to secure two
beams of a given width - this is a business statement. Compare that
to "which is better, nails, staples, or glue?" The same applies for
choice of languages, web tools, etc.. (Sorry Chandru) Choose the tool
that suits the job that you're going to do.

These articles may be of interest:
http://
removethisNebula-RnD.com
/blog/tech/2006/01/is-linux-really-superior.html
and
/blog/tech/2006/02/linux-and-net.html


Any of that help?
T


"ddspell-m3" wrote:

"Tony Gravagno" <g6q3x9lu53001 (AT) sneakemail (DOT) com.invalid> wrote


Sorry T, but you're wrong there! I've been running D3 on the same stable
kernel and Linux distro for many years now. Actually, I've only upgraded
once in the past 8 years. That was from D3/Linux 7.2 to 7.4 for the annoying
file flushing bug that was in 7.2. I have no problem running an older
kernel, and you know what a tech groupie I am. I prefer to run an older
kernel, on enterprise systems, since it has more "miles" on it and I trust
that it won't just blindly bomb on me one day. I can't say that I have been
able to use one specific Windows version on other systems for that long of a
period. You only need to upgrade Linux kernels to take advantage of new
kernel-only features. The kernel add-on modules that have newer kernel
version requirements are usually things like additional file system
capabilities and various new(bleeding edge) hardware technology. On Linux,
compiling the system features into the kernel makes the system _much_ faster
and also eliminates stability issues with module loading. If you don't want
to deal with a kernel upgrade, then don't upgrade the O/S. There is no
reason to, unless you have to have capabilities that are only available in a
newer kernel. If you want new features in a newer release of D3, which just
happens to require a specific kernel for commercial support, then you have
no choice but to upgrade the O/S. That isn't a Linux upgrade or kernel age
issue - it's a RD software requirement. I know many people running D3 on 3
or 4 different distros of Linux with radically different kernel versions. Of
course, they don't pay for RD support. D3 is still happy as long as the
library dependencies are met and you build a reliable box to run it on.

I agree with this to some extent. If it is a small installation and a
non-techie person is going to be managing the server then I'd suggest a
Windows release. If a tech-savvy person is going to be managing it, then the
Linux version is going to give you a lot more bang for the buck. You don't
need to be a Linux guru to setup and run a Linux server. Linux has come a
long way since Slackware 3.0 and its manual configuration steps. Once
properly configured, the server will run by itself for years without any
touching. That's not to say that you shouldn't check on its status regularly
and review logs. :P

Glen

(Another response after 1am that I'm sure to regret...)

"Glen B" wrote:

Uh, blindly bomb on you like a new and improved Linux upgrade?!?
There's an unusual statement. Just kidding, I know what you mean but
man is that door wide open...

D3 is built and certified on specific kernels, and libs built into
distros are built around the kernel. D3 relies on these libs. So as
far as D3 is concerned, the underpinnings "should" only be those which
RD has built and certified their product to run over. If you have had
luck with another distro or a DIY "we don't need no stinkin distro"
environment, great for you. But there are no guarantees whatsoever
that this will be stable. This is a commercial database, it's not
some FC5 hack project. The number of people qualified to build and
maintain this environment you speak of are few and far between (kudos
to ya bud, seriously!) and running D3 (or most MV DBMS products) on a
custom platform is a "run it at your own risk" endeavor. Neither RD
nor anyone else (that I know of) will support D3 over a non-certified
environment.

Your experience and mine balance then. Windows XP came out in 2001
and I haven't used anything else for a desktop since then. That means
I've been running D3 7.1.x to 7.4.x on the exact same OS for 5 years.
There are people here who are still running D3NT on the same Windows
2000 that they installed 6 years ago, having upgraded D3 from v7.0 to
7.4.x. I defy anyone to make the same claim for any D3 Linux
environment.

(I'm sorting of going off here but...)
Sigh, some applications are compiled using a specific version of GCC
and some releases of GCC only work in a given environment. Therefore,
if you want to use the programs in question you must be running over
the latest kernel. Of course you'll say you can build everything from
source, including GCC, for whatever environment you want. There are a
tiny handful of people who will even attempt this sort of thing - and
for those who have the time, I tip my coffee cup. God help anyone who
doesn't know the difference between GCC 2.95.2 and 2.95.3 (yes those
are real release numbers) if they're going to do this sort of thing.
Let's not take that 1% and make it seem like this how the normal base
of Linux users work. Bottom line for mere mortals is that you're
going to upgrade the kernel and everything else when you want some new
release of program X. And since most people aren't able to upgrade a
Linux box (except for small point releases that come through yum,
etc), that means a complete re-install.


That was my original point. This had nothing to do with Linux on it's
own. I was specifically focusing on requirements for D3, not
re-hashing the wonders of Linux. For other DBMS products this might
not apply, but we aren't talking about others...

Very true. And you've pointed out before that the RedHat distro on
which D3 is certified isn't representative of Linux in general. But
since D3 is only supported over RH then for this thread I'm sticking
to the limitations of this specific environment. I'll maintain that
if you try to run a new kernel with old libs or vice versa, all hell
breaks loose in RH, and D3 is very sensitive about only running in the
certified environment.

Off to the side for a moment, this advice is neither useful nor
appropriate for this particular thread. What I mean is we have a noob
here who is looking for a platform to run on. If you encourage him to
run on something unconventional and unsupported then none of us here
will be able to support him and neither will RD. He'll be alone and
possibly frustrated with going down the DIY path. In a forum like
comp.databases.d3.hack.hack.hack this sort of discussion would be
typical but I think we need to stick with what works here without
resorting to hardcore hacks. Sometimes what some people Can do
shouldn't be confused with advice about what one guy Should be doing.


That is very true.
Until Yum or Apt or Up2Date loads something it shouldn't and your libs
are completely screwed and you need to re-install. Sorry dude, it's
happened to the last three environments I've installed. Some package
erroneously sets up a bad dependency chain and loads something that
breaks everything else. Welcome to the wonderful world where a
thousand packages are maintained by a thousand different groups of
people. I'm tired of it. Can't call me an idiot for what happens
here, but these routines are set to run on their own, and they tend to
break on their own. My ineptitude is that I can't fix it - though I'd
maintain that I shouldn't have to.

That's very true too.

Let's not let turn this into a debate about Linux vs Windows. We both
have lots of valid arguments and neither side will win. The important
thing for now is to just answer Danny's questions about D3 - he can
get philosophical rhetoric about operating systems elsewhere.

T

ddspell-m3 wrote:
What is the motivation for even considering such a move?

I'd stay with D3/Linux EVERY time! Whilst D3/Windows 7.5 may address
some issues in the future, today D3/Windows lacks features like
transaction logging, indices don't work properly in the FSI, the FSI
appears to be "fragile", programs can behave differently in the VME &
FSI, OSFI has "problems" that don't exist in D3/Linux, the "limited"
monitoring capabilities of D3 are even further linited on D3/Windows
.... the list goes on.

I recently visited a site where I had to reboot their D3/Linux server -
uptime was 1473 days ! Tell me again why you are contemplating this
move?

Ross Ferris wrote:
I agree Ross. I have can only think of 3 reasons to take down a
D3/Linux system.

1. Failed Hardware - Tape, CD-RW, NIC replacement.
2. Moving the system.
3. Hurricane (And this is just a precaution) as they usually come
through just fine if they aren't soggy and don't smell like smoke.

A couple years back I think Count D. said they had to move away from
Windows because the people in charge of the system liked to load DOOM
so they could play after hours . Not a pleasant thought. To the inept
at least they will respect Linux as a *Server*. Not as likely true for
a Windows machine.

My 2, Patrick <;=)

"Tony Gravagno" <g6q3x9lu53001 (AT) sneakemail (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

And as I said, non of them pay for support. They also don't expect help
from RD when they upgrade. However, most of them have been running on the
same release of D3 and Linux for years now with no problems and no rebooting
at all. In this case, it's along the lines of "don't knock it, unless you've
outgrown it." With multi-hundred user sites running on Linux, I can't see a
reason for any small to mid-size firm needing to upgrade any release of D3
on any version of Linux. Of course, if you want software options that only
exist in the newest release then you have no choice but to upgrade. The same
is true for any of the platforms and there are always O/S issues when you
jump more than a minor revision in a product as O/S demanding as D3.

Fair enough. I don't run Windows on servers, so I mainly see the trends
that Microsoft forces on OEM computer vendors. :P

I love Win2K. I prefer it over WinXP Pro for servers, just from a stability
standpoint. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to buy now! If you want to
setup a new server, you don't have many choices other than XP and 2003. On
the flip side, I can install an old Linux release at any point and never
think twice about licensing problems.

What distro did you have these problems on? I've never had GCC dependency
issues on Debian. I have had project conflicts, though. That's no different
than downloading a Windows application compiled for SP4 and you can't run
SP4 due to another application that crashes with the SP4 updates. 6 to
half-a-dozen on both sides there.

That totally depends on the distro! Some distros are worse at approving
packages and forcing dependency corrections than others. You almost need an
act of congress to publish a package on Debian's main APT source list. Now,
if you go to Joe's Code Shack and download his .deb package file, don't
curse out Linux when it conflicts with 10 packages and corrupts your apt
database. You're totally at fault for not checking what stuff his software
is linked to and reading his requirements page to make sure that
non-standard package install is kosher. The same applies to downloading an
MSI that replaces system DLLs with custom ones and corrupts the registry.
I've had that happen a few times and it's not a pretty sight! 6 to
half-a-dozen again.

So, I can upgrade D3/NT at any point, and for any version, without having
to upgrade any parts of Windows or install anything new? I don't run it, so
I'm really asking - I'm not being sarcastic.

Yes. RH is a crappy distro and I'll be glad when I am forced to upgrade to
something else. I'll also be terrified to have to touch that machine!

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer. The people who run non-certified O/S's
under D3 know what they are doing and don't need RD for support.

To be honest, I've never had that issue when running Debian stable. Granted
that release is based on an older(compared to current) kernel, there are
still software and security updates being done for various software
applications on a regular basis. Nothing makes it to stable certification
until it's been run over in the road millions of times. However, there's
always room for improvement and even more security :P
I have mostly had those kinds of problems on Red Hat, which is now
extinct. In general, and outside of Red Hat, I have dependency issues when
trying to install packages that weren't approved by the distro maintainers
for the release I'm running. Most package maintainers will release a package
for each version of a Linux distro. Or, they will release a general release
with the oldest "current" version of dependencies. Yes, this is really a
pain compared to the Windows "Runs on 98/ME/2000/XP" commonality. To each
his own.

You can make a good decision when you are well informed. Hopefully, there's
plenty of stuff to discuss and think about now. <G>

Glen

Ross,


1. Standardizing on one O/S.
2. Reduce or eliminate the need for multi-platform training.
3. To gain confidence that the system is under control.

For instance, right now I need to expand the size of the D3 file system
(database?) which will require me to use a utility that I have very
little experience. I believe the command in Linux is divvy, but it was
been about 3 years since I did it last. My uneasiness is that if I
screw it up, I don't know if I can recover. I have backups, but I've
never done a restore from scratch. I guess I should just grab a
machine and throw Linux on it and try a restore, but the problem with
this is that I don't have a macine with an identical configuration. I
guess this points out the need to buy two servers, albeit with less
disk and redundancy for the second one, when one buys a new server so
that a suitable test environment exists.

I would hire a D3 expert, but I don't know where to find one locally
(Dallas, TX).

So you see, if I was on Windows, I don't think my concerns above would
be an issue.


Regards,
Danny

Ross Ferris wrote: