NetWare 4.1 or Windows NT?
Wrong Question

In the first of this two-part series exploring how to choose a platform based on individual network needs, Boyd overviews the elements that need to be considered in a needs analysis. The second half of this series will examine each platform, NetWare and NT, in terms of ease of network design and administration.

Corporate IS professionals have recently been barraged with the question "Which operating system should I choose for my business--NetWare 4.1 or Windows NT?" This is the wrong question to ask. Rather, before deciding on an operating system, network administrators should examine their needs. Ask, "How will I best use existing and emerging technologies to serve my company's needs?"

For example, the desktop OS wars of recent years produced heated debate about which platform to choose--IBM vs. Apple. Some users went with the operating system that they were already familar with, others listened to the media blitz and made their decision based on that, others listened to a friend's advice--the list of methods for choosing one way or the other goes on. Another method often employed to choose a desktop OS went something like this: examine the company's specific needs, pick the software application(s) that best fits those needs, and finally, choose the platform on which to run that package. Frequently an application cannot be separated from its platform, so the choice of application forces the choice of platform.

For example, if your company wanted to publish a document like the Network News, you would probably choose tools that favored design, layout, and easy commercial printing press interaction. The best application packages for these tasks generally lie in the Apple Macintosh camp. If, however, your company needed large, structured document management and editing tools, the DOS or UNIX platform and one of the outstanding document management packages available on that platform would be the best choice.

This method for choosing a desktop OS can easily be applied in server OS selection. Let me illustrate. A recent client selected a vertical market application specifically targeted to its industry (commercial cabinet design and manufacturing) that exactly met company needs. The application ran on Windows NT Server. The company consequently installed a Compaq Proliant 4000 with dual 100MHz Pentium processors, 128Mb RAM, 20Gb of RAID 5 disk and 150 Windows NT Workstation clients. Here we see the application of the methodology mentioned above. The client first chose the application that best fit its needs, then went with the corresponding platform. Choosing the application platform prematurely would have unnecessarily limited application options.

My goal in this article is not to identify the best platform but to frame the NetWare vs. Windows NT question from the proper perspective. Like Macintosh and Intel-based systems, NetWare 4.1 and Windows NT each have different strengths. Just as companies evaluate their needs before deciding between Macintosh and Intel, companies should evaluate their needs before deciding between NetWare 4.1 and Windows NT. Also, just as many companies use both Intel and Macintosh platforms, many, if not most companies, will also choose to have both NetWare 4.1 and Windows NT along with Unix and OS/2.

I have attempted in this article to provide an overview of the issues that need to be addressed in a needs analysis to determine which OS to use. Because some companies will have very specific demands for their network, it would be difficult if not impossible to address every possible situation, I intend to cover the basics in needs analysis.

Two basic categories can be distinguished that need to be addressed in an analysis of a company's expectations for network performance: network characteristics and operating system characteristics. Each category contains several criteria that should be considered with regard to an individual company's needs. These criteria are:

Network characteristics

• Primary use of server
• Size of network (LAN/WAN)
• Projected growth of network
• Existing system

OS characteristics

• Cost
• Maturity and stability
• Availability of support personnel
• Reliability
• Performance

Network Characteristics

The core of NetWare is file and print services. If your company's needs stop at file and print, then go no further. Buy NetWare 4.1. Even the most optimistic benchmarks, published by Microsoft, only have Windows NT on a par with NetWare 4.1. Those benchmarks typically involve fewer than 30 clients, which translates to a very lightly loaded system. As the system load grows, Novell's non-preemptive ring 0 architecture demonstrates its advantages for basic network services. The most frequently quoted figure from Novell, based on a PC Week published comparison, has NetWare 4.1 outperforming Windows NT by 59% at higher loads. Some tests place NetWare 4.1 as much as twice as fast under heavy loads.

If the network is small (single site with less than 200 users) and the file/print demands are not too heavy, then NetWare's file and print advantage may not be particularly important. No rule says you must use the same size server as was used in the benchmarks either. Benchmarks, by their very nature, must use identical equipment for each system. But, since Windows NT supports multiple processors, it might be quite reasonable to use a more powerful server to overcome the performance disadvantage. Novell plans to release an update to NetWare 4.1 later this year that will also support multiple processors.

A high level definition of messaging includes transferring text, data, graphics, video and audio over the network. Both Microsoft and Novell provide well regarded high-end messaging applications. The messaging applications, be they simple e-mail or integrated workgroup applications, reside on top of the basic networking platform. The central component of all messaging applications is the transfer of data between users and between applications. That transfer requires some sort of database or directory that identifies and locates the users or applications. A database or directory can either be part of the network operating system or maintained separately.

A directory service provides a central repository of information about system resources. Every user and application on the network can access this information. Applications such as electronic mail can greatly benefit from close integration with a directory service. Without a directory service an administrator must maintain two separate directories, one for the system and one for e- mail. A directory service integrated with an application can eliminate this redundant work.

Novell's NDS, an integral part of NetWare 4.1, provides a global (as in network-wide) X.500 based directory of information about network resources. NDS provides Novell with a multiple- year jump on Microsoft in directory services. Microsoft will include a similar directory service with Cairo, the next major release of NT, likely to ship in 1997. Add some time for the inevitable patches and fixes along with rampup time for third-party support and you've got a huge lead for Novell here.

Microsoft has also announced Exchange, an integrated e-mail, scheduling, electronic forms, document sharing application. This will purportedly utilize an X.500 based directory that will be maintained separately from the Windows NT domain information. Exchange is in Beta 1 release, with Beta 2 scheduled for this summer, and a final delivery date before year's end. How Exchange stacks up to competing products remains to be seen.

Both Microsoft and Novell, along with the Unix vendors, will happily quote TPS (transactions per second) benchmarks that conclusively prove that theirs is the superior database platform. While NetWare 4.1 does support various third-party databases, such as Oracle and Sybase, which run as NLMs, Novell does not position NetWare 4.1 as the preferred platform for mission-critical database applications. Instead, UnixWare is Novell's strategic platform for both database and general application servers. If you have in-house UNIX expertise (any flavor), then you're probably already using it as an application or database platform. For most corporations, UNIX is the preferred platform for high-end, high performance client-server databases and applications due to its sophisticated development tools, system scalability, and proven OS reliability.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has targeted the database and general applications market as the best reason to move to Windows NT. Designed as a preemptive multitasking OS, like UNIX and OS/2, Windows NT supports up to four processors in the standard shipping package. It is undeniably easier to learn and administer than UNIX and uses a graphical interface so similar to Windows 3.11 that many users will not notice the differences. Microsoft also produces the front-end applications: MS Access, programming languages and tools like Visual BASIC and Visual C++, as well as the database SQL Server, that, when combined with Windows NT Server form an extremely well-integrated package that many developers will find hard to resist. ISVs will produce vertical market applications that will find easier market acceptance from many potential customers wary of UNIX and its reputation for requiring a pony-tailed, sandal-shod guru. While the ultimate high-end client-server applications will still probably utilize various forms of UNIX, Windows NT will definitely grab a large chunk of this market.

Regardless of which application server platform (NetWare, NT, Unix or OS/2) is needed, a corporate network based on either NT or NetWare will be able to provide the appropriate connectivity to the application server.

Sidebar: You Can't Have Chips Without Salsa

Projected Growth of Network. The question for most network administrators is not whether their network will grow but rather how much it will grow. More users, more servers, more sites, more data, more powerful workstations and applications that make greater demands for network bandwidth all need to be considered. The network OS selected must easily accommodate this growth. Both NetWare 4.1 with NDS and Windows NT with Microsoft Domain Services need to be well planned if the administrator is to avoid major headaches as the network expands.

Novell made a strategic marketing error by overemphasizing the need for planning NDS to the point that potential administrators are wary of moving to NetWare 4. Microsoft paid attention to that mistake and has marketed Windows NT as requiring little advance planning. The reality for both systems lies in the middle. If your LAN will soon become a WAN, then planning is especially important. Larger networks are much more difficult to re-engineer due to the sheer number of people and resources involved. Both platforms can work well, although NDS provides some advantages that are especially significant on a WAN.

Existing systems. A huge decision point for most companies involves their already existing systems. Novell has a tremendous advantage because the overwhelming majority of installed networks are based on NetWare 3. Not only is the upgrade from NetWare 3 to NetWare 4.1 easier than changing to Windows NT, but the NLM architecture is identical, as far as the administrator is concerned. That leaves only NDS to master. A change to Windows NT involves learning Microsoft Domain Services (an equivalent task) as well as learning how to monitor and optimize a new system based on an entirely different internal architecture. The larger the existing network, the more problematic this becomes. The task is not insurmountable, just more difficult.

Operating System Characteristics

Maturity and Stability. An operating system, like any other application, benefits from the progressive improvement that comes from rigorous field experience. Both systems have been around long enough to have the major kinks worked out and Microsoft and Novell are both committed to continually improving their systems.

With the release of NetWare 4.1, Novell finally gets rid of the dreaded "dot zero" label, signifying to many a more mature product. Each version of NetWare 4, along with several interim updates along the way, has added new functionality and improved stability and manageability of Novell's flagship operating system. The most notable change with 4.1 is the ability to easily and radically restructure the NDS tree. Separate NDS trees can also be merged. This allows companies to independently develop different parts of their network and then join them later.

No dummies when it comes to marketing, Microsoft intelligently sidestepped the dot zero issue by releasing their Beta version as 3.1 and releasing the first ready-for-prime-time version as Windows NT 3.5. While the maturity level of Windows NT 3.5 may be comparable to that of NetWare 4.01, the edge belongs to Novell as the networking market leader. Simply put, they've done it longer and better than anyone else.

Availability of Support Personnel. Support personnel are the single largest cost item in running a network. If a company does not have sufficiently trained personnel, it will need to invest in training or hire expertise. Novell has a substantial advantage in this area due to its larger market position and large CNE population.

A network professional without experience in either NetWare 4.1 or Windows NT would likely find the learning curve similar for each. Both companies have developed courseware, available through authorized education centers, which will adequately prepare one to start working with the OS, although true expertise only comes with experience (albeit often painful experience). Expect to spend approximately two weeks in class and a similar amount of time after class to really master the material.

Both companies' systems are complex enough to justify the expenditure of substantial time and effort learning the system before a company attempts to set up any large-scale and/or critical network. Many of the horror stories that have appeared about each OS could have been avoided had the companies properly learned the ins and outs of the OS prior to implementation. It never ceases to amaze me how many people seem surprised to learn that implementing a WAN is much more involved than bringing up a 20-user file server. NetWare 4.x seems to get a lot of this sort of press coverage due to its larger market share and WAN capabilities.

Reliability. Want to hear a good horror story? Don't bother with Stephen King--just ask a network administrator about her last system crash. Network reliability is one of a network administrator's top priorities, and reliability of both hardware and software should be taken into account.

Novell's reliability features focus primarily on the file server hardware. Long-time NetWare users will recognize features like Hot Fix Redirection, Duplicate FAT and DET, and drive mirroring. SFT III (System Fault Tolerant), an expensive option with NetWare 3, is now available for a much smaller additional licensing fee with NetWare 4. SFT III allows two file servers to be mirrored via a high-speed link. If one server fails for any reason, the other automatically and transparently takes over. Most Novell NLM products, such as NFS, NetWare/IP, NMS, Global MHS, Lan WorkGroup and Lan WorkPlace function with SFT III. Some, however, do not yet: Host Print, MPR, NetWare Connect, NetWare for LAT, NetWare for SAA and NetWare Navigator. All of these work with NetWare 4.1, but not with NetWare 4.1 with SFT III. Microsoft has no similar functionality with Windows NT.

Novell's approach to software reliability depends mostly on well-written programs. NetWare 4 is a non-preemptive operating system, which means that no central kernel level scheduler manages how the various NLMs use system resources, such as memory and CPU. This approach has its ups and downs. One major advantage is that the programs (NLMs) have no additional overhead, and with NetWare, they have direct access to all system resources: in other words, they're fast. One disadvantage, however, is that developers must carefully write NLMs to avoid resource conflicts.

With NetWare 4, Novell introduced the ability to run NLMs in an NT-like protected memory domain, eliminating the possibility of one program overwriting another. Unfortunately, the performance hit for doing this is 10%-30%. Also, the NLM must be written to allow running in the protected domain. Most third-party NLMs (the ones you would really want to use with this function) do not support this mode.

Microsoft takes the opposite approach to system reliability, focusing primarily on the software. They have built software reliability into the basic design of the OS. Because Windows NT is a preemptive operating system (like OS/2 and Unix), the central core of the OS manages the activities of all other programs, ensuring that they do not misbehave and interfere with the operation of other programs running simultaneously. If a program should encounter problems, it can be shut down without stopping the other programs. Hardware reliability features are limited to disk mirroring (RAID 1) and a software-based RAID 5 implementation. These functions are usually much more appropriately handled by hardware-based solutions. For a more detailed discussion of RAID, see my April 1994 Network News article "RAID in a NetWare Environment."

Performance. So many factors contribute to network performance that it is almost impossible to assess. Most industry benchmarks do little more than exhaustively test a relatively narrow component of overall performance. To the extent that your environment resembles the test environment, you may find benchmarks useful. I believe that too much attention is given to server performance instead of to more important issues such as ease of administration, manageability, and availability of third party applications. File server performance is not the holy grail of network computing.

Published benchmarks for the two systems have NetWare with perhaps a 30% advantage as a file/print server on equivalent equipment. Microsoft doesn't argue the file/print performance issue too hard, essentially conceding it to NetWare. Instead, they concentrate on Windows NT's advantages as an application/database platform. The argument in favor of NT goes like this: It makes an adequate file/print server and a superior applications/database platform. If you need more performance, throw another Pentium processor in the server. For most networks with only a few servers and a single site I find that argument to be quite reasonable.

Final Analysis

Walter Boyd is an independent ECNE/CNI and a principal in Certified Network Solutions, a Novell Authorized Service Center based in Salt Lake City, Utah. You can contact him at 801-553-2440 or wboyd@certifiednets.com.

Return to top of page

Sidebar: You Can't Have Chips Without Salsa

Return to article

This article originally appeared in the June 1995 issue of Network News, the technical journal of the Network Professional Association. The NPA's mission is to advance the network computing profession. NPA is an independent, self-regulating, non-profit association of network computing professionals that sets standards of technical expertise, professionalism, and ethical behavior to promote a common profession. Membership in the NPA is $175 U.S. per year to all individuals who qualilfy. Associate membership in the NPA is available for $175 U.S. per year to individuals who qualify. For more information, call 1-801-379-0330.