[rescue] NT. MAKES. ME. SICK.

Gil Young rescue at sunhelp.org
Fri Jun 15 01:15:32 CDT 2001


I'm not venting against you, it is all towards NT :).  I used to want to get
it, now I cant afford to take the time to get it.

From: Devin L. Ganger <devin at thecabal.org>
To: <rescue at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: [rescue] NT. MAKES. ME. SICK.

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 12:01:08AM -0400, Gil Young wrote:
> > Now riddle me this, should a supposed enterprise system behave in this
> > manner:
> > 1) Error log being written to a few times a minute, one line per error,
> > error over and over and over.
> If some subsystem is trying to connect to that volume, on behalf of some
> piece of software in the system, damn right it should.

Damn right it shouldnt! It should say something like "this error repeated
965 times" and not overwrite the damn X meg log file every 2 minutes in its
entirety, what the FSCK is M$ thinking?

> > 2) A missing volume (purely data volume, not OS related whatsoever) is
> > cause of the continuous stream of errors.
> If some subsystem is trying to connect to that volume, on behalf of some
> piece of software in the system, damn right it should.

Again, Damn right it shouldnt... sigh, a data volume!  A DATA VOLUME!  I
dont care what subsystem on behalf of what software, NT should kick it
square in the nuts and say "sorry, homey dont play that" and not act like it
is right now, there is no excuse. How utterly embarrasing for an OS!

> > 3) A registry hack as the proposed solution!! And one that does not
> > BTW.
> Pre-supposes that the registry isn't a reasonable solution to the problem
> of keeping centralized configuration information.  You may not like it,
> but it does work.

Exactly! Lets take all the OS parameters, application "stuff" (for lack of a
better term), driver "stuff", misc settings, etc.. and anything else you can
think of and put it into ONE file, editable by ONE editor, and if you screw
it up oh well?  Yeah, thats the ticket!  Id love it if it really worked, I
really would, I would treat it with whatever level of respect it needed.
Hehe, and if I screwed the regedit up, well, hehe, then again I dont have
good recent backups CAUSE OF THE (*^)(*&^$% PROBLEM :(:(:(!

> Now, as to the specific hack in question not working -- it happens.  Just
> like having some newsgroup guru give you a solution to try that doesn't
> work, or calling Sun support and having them tell you something that isn't
> the fix for the problem.

Or maybe something as simple as disk management, e.g. getting rid of a
volume, shouldnt FSCK the system so royally to start.  I guess the trouble
is that the hack came form the creator?  Of course with suppoort, it all
depends on the tech on the other end of the phone, but I shouldnt have to go
this far for this issue, ever.  I have told techs that they dont know what
they are talking about before, and figured it out eventually, belivei it or
not, from mail lists and newsgroups who have lived the issue.

What gets me is storage management is so basic, so core, and this
implementation is sooooo sad.  A good example of M$ mentality is here tho,
it is a core component, but it is not what sells the OS to middle
management, so screw it.

> > 4) A disk manager that insists it knows better than you what needs to be
> > done, and thus refuses to let you get rid of the volumes.
> It won't let you remove the volumes because there is some subsystem that
> is still convinced that they are there.  Find the offending subsystem and
> fix it.

What would you recommend looking at?  Even if that is true, think about
this, a "SUB-SYSTEM" is screwing over -THE- disk manager. And the file
system manager is, well, OK with that.  Hmm....

> > I have admined and managed NT systems alongside UNIX  for about 3 years
> > coming from a huge UNIX background.  I still do both, mainly UNIX, and I
> > not a cert'ed paper jock, I earned my keep cutting my teeth through
> > thousands of all nighters, code hacks, kernel patches, etc....
> Compare what NT, in its -- what, 10 years now? lifetime, is capable of now
> as compared to what Unix was in its first 10 years.

So NT is not ready for enterprise trust until it is at least as old and
stable as UNIX is now, so why dont they pack up and go away, they'll never
get there...  And when the do, UNIX will still be better cause it is older?
What does age and capability have to do with enterprise worthy or not?  Now
and ever since, UNIX has been better.  I used to believe M$ woud take over
because I believed what they said. Now I am confident it will never get
there because they half truth or lie, their focus is not where it needs to
be, and never will be under current M$ leadership.

I had really sharp NT admins (they really were!) who touted NT as stable,
blah blah blah blah blah, never went down, etc.. so I listened, gave them
full reign, bought compaq servers, put an enterprise infrastructure in
place, and poof..  The two racks of NT stuff have given more heartache,
unexplainable issues, and downtime in any 3 months than the 10 racks of sun
boxen have in a year.  Just the other night, Exchange decided to quit,
nothing in the logs, nothing on screen, no dr watsons, just "i quit". stop
and start of services..... nothing.  had to reboot to get it back. Oh golly
yeah, gotta do that, yeah, well now that your problem is over Mr Young, i'll
let you go, click.

Yeah, I sleep good at nights with that.

I think im getting too silly, Dang its late, K g'night all!

> --
> Devin L. Ganger <devin at thecabal.org>
> find / -name *base* -exec chown us:us {} \;
> su -c someone 'export UP_US=thebomb'
> for f in great justice ; do sed -e 's/zig//g' < $f ; done
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist  -  rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

More information about the rescue mailing list