In Central Florida we had a thriving Mom & Pop ISP business. With ISP's like InternetU (www.iu.net), Florida Online (www.digital.net), Metrolink (www.metrolink.net) and Palm Net (www.palmnet.com). Now they've all been bought by either OneMain (www.onemain.com), Duro Communications (www.mpi.net), or gone out of business. The result? Most of my customers have had to go to other national ISP's because of downtime and poor support for ISP issues.
For a while Duro (mpi.net) was the number 2 largest source for spam on the net after UU.NET and they are only a regional ISP. I miss working with locals since they would generally help you support products like Linux or *BSD instead of the knee-jerk helpdesk at BellSouth that blames all their problems on the client. I don't know that I'd characterize the sell out as 'evil', but it sure does suck for me now.
I sent in a few links to LinuxToday for a story about the SpecWEB99 numbers from Dell recently. Here is this link to the resulting story.
The bottom line is that Dell has been submitting systems to the Special Performance Evaluation Corp (SPEC) to be included in the SpecWEB99 results. Dell using the Red Hat TUX 1.0 web server has kicked the butt of all other submissions with the single exception of the IBM eServer pSeries 680 with 12 CPU's running Zeus. The Dell / Red Hat Tux 1.0 (8 CPU) numbers come in at 6387 simultaneous connections. The IIS/5.0 systems highest score is on an IBM Netfinity 6000R (4CPU) comes dragging in at 1582.
Our LUG is now officially supporting the vendor independent LPI certifications. We had a record number of listeners to the IceCast of last nights meeting which covered the test.
I have also started a project site at our LUG website to support members who want to get certified. Hereis the URL: http://www.mlinux.org/projects/cer tified/lpi117/. It includes a FAQ about the test from my perspective and a list of resources to study. As other members take the test I will add their points of view to the FAQ as well.
I was one of the first persons (ID: LPI000001003) to take this test. I just wanted to share my experiences with you guys.
The testing center near my home is a local technical school. They were friendly and the exam area was comfortable. I arrived early and brushed through parts of the O'Reilly "Essential System Administration" I haven't read over in a while.
While I was waiting, a gentlemen approached me and asked if I was there to take a Linux exam. I smiled and indicated I was. He was attending the school there pursuing his MSCE and had some questions about Linux and the exam. He was curious how I was preparing especially and what subjects the exam covered. I explained I was a consultant and have been using Linux since 1994 and recommended a few good books on the subjects covered by the exam. I also explained what I know about the exam structure and requirements. I also indicated that I chaired the Melbourne Linux User Group (http://www.mlinux.org/) and that we have local meetings. He took my business card and said he would like to attend our install party this weekend.
I was motioned to the testing area by the librarian and she explained that mine was the second beta exam she ever gave and the first Linux exam. I told her to expect a few more in the coming weeks and she logged me into the exam system.
The test was challenging and I added comments for each of the questions, added why I selected the options I did or when I was guessing. The questions were appropriate for the target level you mentioned on the site. Good job LPI!
When the test was completed I was given a printout that featured the LPI logo and some explanation of the beta period scoring. I am disappointed that I won't know the results for a while, but am glad I was able to help by providing another example test for LPI to mull over. If you want to contact me and ask me anything about the test, please feel free.
Thanks to LPI for this effort at distribution neutral certification! I feel very strongly about supporting this and will be encouraging the members of our LUG to support it as well.
I spotted a thread below that asked where we/.ers were going to get $50,000 for hardware to debunk poorly done benchmarks. I think that is the wrong approach and the wrong question. We already have all the equipment we need and the tools are already available. You just have to be a little creative.
One of my biggest beefs with all benchmarks is that they test things that don't matter in the real world. For one thing, the data rates being generated by the test server in the Mindcraft analysis were higher rates than even Yahoo! would have to achieve in a given day.
If you REALLY had to support those kinds of data rates you wouldn't do it with one server even if you could. The idea they try to put forward is that if it performs well in an opercharged overcharged configuration, it must be technically better for all configurations. This is like saying that because Jaguar's formula one racecar won the race they have the best passenger car. Ridicules! Scalability goes BOTH directions and more people buy small to mid-sized servers than servers that were spec'd like that monster. How many servers really need over a gig of RAM? (That aren't running NT...)
I was planning an event for my local LUG way before this survey came out and now I think it is even more important. I am planning on a head-to-head benchmark between two "station wagons"; Microsoft Small Business Server (of which MS conveniently sent me a 120 evaluation copy) and Linux (probably Debian) running equivalent services. The hardware will be spec'd at this weeks meeting and is being donated to be auctioned at the event by a small local vendor. It will probably be a uniprocessor server system that meets the "recommended" hardware settings for NT-SBS since Linux will run well on damn near anything.
We are going to either download and use an evaluation version of "Benchmark Factory" or the Ziff Davis benchmark suite to perform ODBC / Database, file service, web service benchmarks. I would also like to use Qmail against Exchange in an email benchmark just for laughs if I can find a good mail benchmarking package. One of the other issues I want to address is how easily Samba integrates into a mixed environment which will also be in our report. Cost to my group? $0 so far.
Since the Mindcraft report came out and I like the format (if not the content), I am going to release our report in a similar format with all the parameters, optimizations and notes so the tests can be duplicated by anyone interested. For independent verification I am planning on performing the benchmark at a local university under the supervision and sponsorship of a computer science professor and the local IEEE Computer Society chapter.
When I am done, you will have a case study and benchmark that is actually useful to small businesses. Other local LUG's or colleges or companies could start testing high performance web servers, small-scale file servers and proxy performance between any available operating systems / software using a little creative planning. We could then compile the resulting data into a single, searchable reference that could refute any other "sponsored" benchmarks if the numbers don't match our own.
If anyone has any ideas or suggestions, or would like to pursue this idea, drop me a line. I would be willing to donate time to help organize this.
Slashdot Mirror
In Central Florida we had a thriving Mom & Pop ISP business. With ISP's like InternetU (www.iu.net), Florida Online (www.digital.net), Metrolink (www.metrolink.net) and Palm Net (www.palmnet.com). Now they've all been bought by either OneMain (www.onemain.com), Duro Communications (www.mpi.net), or gone out of business. The result? Most of my customers have had to go to other national ISP's because of downtime and poor support for ISP issues.
For a while Duro (mpi.net) was the number 2 largest source for spam on the net after UU.NET and they are only a regional ISP. I miss working with locals since they would generally help you support products like Linux or *BSD instead of the knee-jerk helpdesk at BellSouth that blames all their problems on the client. I don't know that I'd characterize the sell out as 'evil', but it sure does suck for me now.
I sent in a few links to LinuxToday for a story about the SpecWEB99 numbers from Dell recently. Here is this link to the resulting story.
The bottom line is that Dell has been submitting systems to the Special Performance Evaluation Corp (SPEC) to be included in the SpecWEB99 results. Dell using the Red Hat TUX 1.0 web server has kicked the butt of all other submissions with the single exception of the IBM eServer pSeries 680 with 12 CPU's running Zeus. The Dell / Red Hat Tux 1.0 (8 CPU) numbers come in at 6387 simultaneous connections. The IIS/5.0 systems highest score is on an IBM Netfinity 6000R (4CPU) comes dragging in at 1582.
Hope this helps.
Tony
http://www.mlinux.org/ms-conclusions.pdf
Get it while its hot.
Tony
Our LUG is now officially supporting the vendor independent LPI certifications. We had a record number of listeners to the IceCast of last nights meeting which covered the test.
I have also started a project site at our LUG website to support members who want to get certified. Hereis the URL: http://www.mlinux.org/projects/cer tified/lpi117/. It includes a FAQ about the test from my perspective and a list of resources to study. As other members take the test I will add their points of view to the FAQ as well.
Thanks!
Tony Awtrey
I was one of the first persons (ID: LPI000001003) to take this test. I just wanted to share my experiences with you guys.
The testing center near my home is a local technical school. They were friendly and the exam area was comfortable. I arrived early and brushed through parts of the O'Reilly "Essential System Administration" I haven't read over in a while.
While I was waiting, a gentlemen approached me and asked if I was there to take a Linux exam. I smiled and indicated I was. He was attending the school there pursuing his MSCE and had some questions about Linux and the exam. He was curious how I was preparing especially and what subjects the exam covered. I explained I was a consultant and have been using Linux since 1994 and recommended a few good books on the subjects covered by the exam. I also explained what I know about the exam structure and requirements. I also indicated that I chaired the Melbourne Linux User Group (http://www.mlinux.org/) and that we have local meetings. He took my business card and said he would like to attend our install party this weekend.
I was motioned to the testing area by the librarian and she explained that mine was the second beta exam she ever gave and the first Linux exam. I told her to expect a few more in the coming weeks and she logged me into the exam system.
The test was challenging and I added comments for each of the questions, added why I selected the options I did or when I was guessing. The questions were appropriate for the target level you mentioned on the site. Good job LPI!
When the test was completed I was given a printout that featured the LPI logo and some explanation of the beta period scoring. I am disappointed that I won't know the results for a while, but am glad I was able to help by providing another example test for LPI to mull over. If you want to contact me and ask me anything about the test, please feel free.
Thanks to LPI for this effort at distribution neutral certification! I feel very strongly about supporting this and will be encouraging the members of our LUG to support it as well.
Tony Awtrey
I spotted a thread below that asked where we /.ers were going to get $50,000 for hardware to debunk poorly done benchmarks. I think that is the wrong approach and the wrong question. We already have all the equipment we need and the tools are already available. You just have to be a little creative.
One of my biggest beefs with all benchmarks is that they test things that don't matter in the real world. For one thing, the data rates being generated by the test server in the Mindcraft analysis were higher rates than even Yahoo! would have to achieve in a given day.
If you REALLY had to support those kinds of data rates you wouldn't do it with one server even if you could. The idea they try to put forward is that if it performs well in an opercharged overcharged configuration, it must be technically better for all configurations. This is like saying that because Jaguar's formula one racecar won the race they have the best passenger car. Ridicules! Scalability goes BOTH directions and more people buy small to mid-sized servers than servers that were spec'd like that monster. How many servers really need over a gig of RAM? (That aren't running NT...)
I was planning an event for my local LUG way before this survey came out and now I think it is even more important. I am planning on a head-to-head benchmark between two "station wagons"; Microsoft Small Business Server (of which MS conveniently sent me a 120 evaluation copy) and Linux (probably Debian) running equivalent services. The hardware will be spec'd at this weeks meeting and is being donated to be auctioned at the event by a small local vendor. It will probably be a uniprocessor server system that meets the "recommended" hardware settings for NT-SBS since Linux will run well on damn near anything.
We are going to either download and use an evaluation version of "Benchmark Factory" or the Ziff Davis benchmark suite to perform ODBC / Database, file service, web service benchmarks. I would also like to use Qmail against Exchange in an email benchmark just for laughs if I can find a good mail benchmarking package. One of the other issues I want to address is how easily Samba integrates into a mixed environment which will also be in our report. Cost to my group? $0 so far.
Since the Mindcraft report came out and I like the format (if not the content), I am going to release our report in a similar format with all the parameters, optimizations and notes so the tests can be duplicated by anyone interested. For independent verification I am planning on performing the benchmark at a local university under the supervision and sponsorship of a computer science professor and the local IEEE Computer Society chapter.
When I am done, you will have a case study and benchmark that is actually useful to small businesses. Other local LUG's or colleges or companies could start testing high performance web servers, small-scale file servers and proxy performance between any available operating systems / software using a little creative planning. We could then compile the resulting data into a single, searchable reference that could refute any other "sponsored" benchmarks if the numbers don't match our own.
If anyone has any ideas or suggestions, or would like to pursue this idea, drop me a line. I would be willing to donate time to help organize this.
DaGoodBoy
You can still get basic whois queries if you don't mind the banner ads...
h ois/whois">
<FORM METHOD="post" ACTION="http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/w
Domain Check:</BR>
<INPUT TYPE="text" SIZE="20" NAME="STRING" ><BR>
<INPUT TYPE="submit" VALUE="Domain Details">
</FORM>
DaGoodBoy
You can still get basic whois queries if you don't mind the banner ads...
Domain Check:
DaGoodBoy