PDA

View Full Version : Pervasive & Novell & Web



Pieter van Dieren
27-Sep-2005, 05:45 AM
We have a customer that uses a Novell 6.5 file server with aprox. 30 users.
Pervasive 8.6 is used and a rather big VDF application.

I read (don't remember where) that Pervasive recommends not to install
Pervasive server on the main file server, but on a separate machine.
Is this indeed advisable? How do you all do this?

Another question: the customer (storage company) wants to host an inhouse
webserver to run a web application for his customers, so they can get some
insight in what happens with their goods.

What would be the best solution in all this?

1. Novell file server
2. Windows Windows Pervasive Server
3. Windows WebApp Server

or

1. Novell file server + Pervasive Server
2. Windows WebApp Server

or

1. Novell file server
2. Windows Windows Pervasive Server + WebApp Server

?

Tia,

Pieter

dave r
27-Sep-2005, 03:25 PM
Not that I want to get into a Netware vs Windows p*ssing contest, but if
your clients ALREADY have Novell 6.5 why would you want to go anywhere else?
The Novell 30 clients come with 5 server licenses in the box, including, if
required, a 2-node cluster.

If you want a stable web server and aren't already committed to a WebApp
solution then you will be running something on Apache; also in the Novell
6.5 box. (Now if the WebApp for Linux servers was available we wouldn't be
having this discussion...<g>.)

Finally, as regards Pervasive's view of the future you should consider that
their leaning away from Netware is as much (or more) towards Linux as
towards Windows. Netware6.5 is your client's entry point to Open Enterprise
Server which can run on either a Netware or a Linux kernel and is IMHO a
very good way of future-proofing your recommendation.

Dave


"Pieter van Dieren" <pieter.v.dieren@synerga.nl> wrote in message
news:RbSfSD1wFHA.3452@dacmail.dataaccess.com...
> We have a customer that uses a Novell 6.5 file server with aprox. 30
> users.
> Pervasive 8.6 is used and a rather big VDF application.
>
> I read (don't remember where) that Pervasive recommends not to install
> Pervasive server on the main file server, but on a separate machine.
> Is this indeed advisable? How do you all do this?
>
> Another question: the customer (storage company) wants to host an inhouse
> webserver to run a web application for his customers, so they can get some
> insight in what happens with their goods.
>
> What would be the best solution in all this?
>
> 1. Novell file server
> 2. Windows Windows Pervasive Server
> 3. Windows WebApp Server
>
> or
>
> 1. Novell file server + Pervasive Server
> 2. Windows WebApp Server
>
> or
>
> 1. Novell file server
> 2. Windows Windows Pervasive Server + WebApp Server
>
> ?
>
> Tia,
>
> Pieter
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pieter van Dieren
29-Sep-2005, 01:14 AM
> If you want a stable web server and aren't already committed to a WebApp
> solution then you will be running something on Apache; also in the Novell
> 6.5 box.

This is an interesting point.
But why shouldn't I be committed to WebApp if I have a huge VDF application?
Imho it doesn't make sense to use another tecnnology than WepApp because
you'll loose all the DD intelligence etc.
Or am I wrong?

--

Pieter

Dave &/or Wempy
29-Sep-2005, 03:41 PM
Hmmm, I read the two questions as unconnected. I suppose if I'd looked
at your alternate suggestions.........

However, and still taking the 'free' 6.5 servers into account.
1. Novell file and print.
2. Novell PSQL runtime.
3. Windows IIS and hope that DAW kick-starts the WebApp for LInux
before you have to switch to Vista in 2018 <g>



On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:14:29 +0200, "Pieter van Dieren"
<pieter.v.dieren@synerga.nl> wrote:

>> If you want a stable web server and aren't already committed to a WebApp
>> solution then you will be running something on Apache; also in the Novell
>> 6.5 box.
>
>This is an interesting point.
>But why shouldn't I be committed to WebApp if I have a huge VDF application?
>Imho it doesn't make sense to use another tecnnology than WepApp because
>you'll loose all the DD intelligence etc.
>Or am I wrong?