--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00007 Date: 04/21/98 From: RON VAN STOKKOM Time: 08:03pm \/To: LAWRENCE GARVIN (Read 3 times) Subj: SCO openserver system to be used as W95-20:03:0804/21/98 20 Apr 98 Lawrence Garvin wrote to Ron van Stokkom LG> There are, at times, advantages to using NFS rather than the LG> SMB-based networking. What is the specific environment and LG> purpose you're looking at? The system consists of a SCO-unix-box which is going to be a database-server (Progress). Most clients run W95 a few wfwg 3.11. These are currently not (yet) connected to the network or only for this database. Main purpose for AFPS/VisionFS/NFS would be file and printer sharing and backup. LG> What kind of -applications- will you be running on this LG> network? Database clients for this Progress database and the usual office tools (wordprocessors, spreadsheets etc..) LG> I have noticed a couple of quirks on the VisionFS server when LG> the Windows95 machine is unexpectedly rebooted (read: LG> crashes). LG> NFS is a bit more forgiving about these things since it's LG> stateless. In the past i also had problems with a PC-NFS-client under windows 3.11 with a directory mounted on a SunOS 4.1 system. Especially with lotus 1-2-3 seemed to have unexplained problems with not releasing files after closing.. I blamed the 'old' version of PC-NFS however.. LG> Also, the SMB networking, like IPX, does generate recurring LG> 'query' packets on the network to detect available resources, LG> so there's a bit more overhead. Hmm.. LG> NFS, on the other hand, has no such overhead -- BUT, the cost LG> for an NFS client for Win95 isn't an inexpensive proposition LG> to consider? I guess it's quite expensive. At least it was last time i checked. Further all clients need to have it installed. LG> Inasmuch as VisionFS is already in SCO OpenServer, and LG> Windows95 already has all the client support necessary -- LG> unless there's an overriding need to use NFS instead -- I'd LG> say go with the VisionFS. I didn't know VisionFS came 'free' with OpenServer. I needed to enter a key to install it in the Free demo-license. I guess i'll start with VisionFS as this will be already available and see how it performs. If necessary i can dump it and consider AFPS of NFS. Thanks for your quick reply. Ron --- * Origin: DOSBoss Centrum 31-345-631895 (2:500/128.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00008 Date: 04/22/98 From: ARTHUR MARSH Time: 02:42pm \/To: LAWRENCE GARVIN (Read 3 times) Subj: SCO Openserver? On Mon 20 Apr at 21:26 Lawrence Garvin (1:106/6018) wrote to Arthur Marsh: LG> No need. I was able to get into the web site last nite. LG> Unixware 7 is NOT yet available; however, SCO is building a LG> 'mailing list' of persons wishing to have email notification LG> when it is available. I must get myself put on that list... LG> However, in other developments, you can get a personal LG> edition of SCO Merge 4.0 which supports Win95 applications LG> on SCO OpenServer. I've downloaded it, but not yet installed LG> it. I'm curious to see how well it performs. I'd be interested to know about it also... SCO recommends 16 Meg of additional RAM to run a Windows 95 session using Merge 4.0 under Openserver. --- msgedsq 2.1 * Origin: Camelot Swamp MJCNA, Hawthorndene, Sth Australia (3:800/812) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00009 Date: 04/22/98 From: LAWRENCE GARVIN Time: 09:48pm \/To: GUY LEFRANCOIS (Read 3 times) Subj: X Session * Reply to a message in PERSONAL. Guy Lefrancois said in a message to Lawrence Garvin: LG> I run an X Session from a P133 Win95 machine on a four-node 10BaseT LG> network. It works great! GL> That's something I wanted to do for a while but didn't get to... GL> Any recomendations about the win client, preferably freeware or GL> shareware? I currently have access to a copy of Netmanage Xoftware -- a commercial product; however, shortly will be seeking another XServer, as my 'license' to use the Xoftware will expire. SCO also makes an XServer that ships as part of the Vision97 suite of tools, called Eclipse. There is a 60-day eval license available from the Vision97 CDROM, and I'm going to take a look at that. If I'm happy with it, I may well fork out the monies to buy a personal license to VisionFS/Eclipse GL> What are the issues on the unix side for a remote X session? The big ones are enough RAM and SWAP to support the X Applications. A secondary one is enough network bandwidth to support the traffic. I would not recommend trying to run X sessions on a congested segment. --- * Origin: lawrence@eforest.houston.tx.us | The Enchanted Forest (1:106/6018) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00010 Date: 04/22/98 From: LAWRENCE GARVIN Time: 10:00pm \/To: RON VAN STOKKOM (Read 3 times) Subj: SCO openserver system to be used as W95-22:00:4004/22/98 * Reply to a message in PERSONAL. Ron van Stokkom said in a message to Lawrence Garvin: RvS> 20 Apr 98 Lawrence Garvin wrote to Ron van Stokkom LG> There are, at times, advantages to using NFS rather than the LG> SMB-based networking. What is the specific environment and LG> purpose you're looking at? RvS> The system consists of a SCO-unix-box which is going to be a RvS> database-server (Progress). Most clients run W95 a few wfwg 3.11. RvS> These are currently not (yet) connected to the network or only for RvS> this database. Main purpose for AFPS/VisionFS/NFS would be file RvS> and printer sharing and backup. Food for thought: If the primary purpose of -that- server is to support a database-server, then I'd strongly recommend configuring a -second- server to provide file and print sharing services if at all possible. Not because one server would be incapable of providing all services, but because you really don't want to complicate a mission-critical database-server with other 'applications' that might compromise the reliability of the system. --- * Origin: lawrence@eforest.houston.tx.us | The Enchanted Forest (1:106/6018) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00011 Date: 04/22/98 From: LAWRENCE GARVIN Time: 10:02pm \/To: RON VAN STOKKOM (Read 3 times) Subj: SCO openserver system to be used as W95-22:02:4504/22/98 Ron van Stokkom said in a message to Lawrence Garvin: LG> Also, the SMB networking, like IPX, does generate recurring LG> 'query' packets on the network to detect available resources, so LG> there's a bit more overhead. RvS> Hmm.. LG> NFS, on the other hand, has no such overhead -- BUT, the cost for LG> an NFS client for Win95 isn't an inexpensive proposition to LG> consider? RvS> I guess it's quite expensive. At least it was last time i checked. RvS> Further all clients need to have it installed. I've seen prices for PC-based NFS clients run from $200-$500 depending on product and point of purchase. LG> Inasmuch as VisionFS is already in SCO OpenServer, and LG> Windows95 already has all the client support necessary -- LG> unless there's an overriding need to use NFS instead -- I'd LG> say go with the VisionFS. RvS> I didn't know VisionFS came 'free' with OpenServer. As of Version 5.0.4, VisionFS ships with the Enterprise or Network Server product. It does not ship with the Host product, IIRC. RvS> I needed to enter a key to install it in the Free demo-license. You still need to "license" it under v5.0.4; however, the "license" ships with the OS product. RvS> Thanks for your quick reply. The joys of Internet-distributed echomail! I jes' replies as they arrives. :) --- * Origin: lawrence@eforest.houston.tx.us | The Enchanted Forest (1:106/6018) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00012 Date: 04/19/98 From: LAWRENCE GARVIN Time: 10:25pm \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: Seeking Suggestions * Original message posted in: OS2. * Crossposted in: OS2LAN, UNIX. Hello All! I'm in the process of 'redesigning' my multi-node Fidonet environment, and would be interested in any input/opinions concerening alternatives, both pro and con, for this design configuration. Essentially I will have four 'nodes' to configure in this system. All require telco access and all require IP access. The IP access is provided via ISDN LAN Router, so is not a direct factor at this time. I have, currently, two OS/2 systems: a 486DX2/66 - 16MB and a 486DX4/100 - 16MB. I also have an 8.4GB hard drive (not installed yet). What I'm curious about is input on the relative issues concering the ability, and value, of customizing the roles of the OS/2 machines. If I add a third OS/2 machine such that I have a "file server", a "modem server", and an "IP node" server -- will I accomplish anything. Most likely the third system would be a 5x86/133 w/32MB (or more). Of course, one of the disadvantages of the "IP node" server is that all four Fidonet nodes would have to share the same IP address -- I'm not aware of any provisions for controlling which IP address a mailer answers on. This could be handled with some creative batch-file pre-processing though, moving files from the IP inbound to the specific node inbound, based on type/name of file received. Second issue: If I don't add a third OS/2 box, but only use the two that I have -- making one a mailer client (essentially running 8 nodes, 4 telco and up to 4 IP nodes) and the other a file server -- which one would benefit best by being on the DX4, or alternatively, which one would be hurt less by being on the DX2? Or am I overextending my CPU resources by trying to support 8 mailers on a 486? A third option -- I currently have an SCO OpenServer personal system running on a 5x86/133 w/32MB. If I move the SCO to the 486DX2/66 system, leaving the DX4/100 and 5x86/133 systems for OS/2 -- what are my best options. I'm inclined to try the following: 486DX/2 (16MB) - SCO OpenServer (basically DNS/SMTP/WWW on an ISDN feed) 486DX/4 (16MB) - File server with 8.4GB drive 5x86/133 (32MB) - Communications server with 4 telco and 4 IP nodes I've posted this to the three groups above, because I'd like input from both the OS/2-Generic as well as the OS/2-LAN crowd -- and the Unix people, I hope, will give me some input on their experience (if any) with SCO OpenServer on a 16MB system (Note Unix gurus -- I have some experience here, and with the exception of poor GUI response, it did work adequately). --- * Origin: lawrence@eforest.houston.tx.us | The Enchanted Forest (1:106/6018) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00013 Date: 04/23/98 From: JASEN BETTS Time: 06:30pm \/To: TIM FRANKLIN (Read 3 times) Subj: SUID ROOT? TF> Programs that actually need to check / change the password (and there TF> really aren't many) can then be set up to either be run by root, or TF> made SUID root. Just a simple question. How does one make programs SUID root? Thanks. --- EzyQwk V1.20 01fa018d * Origin: CSS Brisbane, Qld, Australia. (61-7-3367-3890) (3:640/350) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00014 Date: 04/24/98 From: RON VAN STOKKOM Time: 06:36pm \/To: LAWRENCE GARVIN (Read 3 times) Subj: SCO openserver system to be used as W95-18:36:1404/24/98 22 Apr 98 Lawrence Garvin wrote to Ron van Stokkom LG> Food for thought: If the primary purpose of -that- server is LG> to support a database-server, then I'd strongly recommend LG> configuring a -second- server to provide file and print LG> sharing services if at all possible. Because of financial reasons they didn't let me buy everthing i wanted. As a compromise we agreed to first set up a small network with 5 users. LG> Not because one server would be incapable of providing all LG> services, but because you really don't want to complicate a LG> mission-critical database-server with other 'applications' LG> that might compromise the reliability of the system. As soon as the database becomes mission-critical, a situation i expect to occur in about a year, the network will have expanded. When this happens i will need better hardware for the server, a UPS, more diskspace etc.. For now i have no idea what applications will compromise the reliability. The database-application runs on W95-systems. This means W95 will be introduced in our company.. What kind of reliability-issues do you expect? Sharing-problems? File-corruption? Security-problems? Ron --- * Origin: DOSBoss Centrum 31-345-631895 (2:500/128.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00015 Date: 04/24/98 From: RON VAN STOKKOM Time: 06:36pm \/To: LAWRENCE GARVIN (Read 3 times) Subj: SCO openserver system to be used as W95-18:36:3204/24/98 22 Apr 98 Lawrence Garvin wrote to Ron van Stokkom RvS> I guess it's quite expensive. At least it was last time i checked. LG> I've seen prices for PC-based NFS clients run from $200-$500 LG> depending on product and point of purchase. I remember paying about Dfl. 500-600, which is about $250, so this didn't change too much. [VisionFS] RvS> I needed to enter a key to install it in the Free demo-license. LG> You still need to "license" it under v5.0.4; however, the LG> "license" ships with the OS product. Yep, you are correct. I didn't read this in the information i received. RvS> Thanks for your quick reply. LG> The joys of Internet-distributed echomail! Ron --- * Origin: DOSBoss Centrum 31-345-631895 (2:500/128.3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: F5G00016 Date: 04/24/98 From: LAWRENCE GARVIN Time: 07:39pm \/To: RON VAN STOKKOM (Read 3 times) Subj: SCO openserver system to be used as W95-19:39:2804/24/98 Ron van Stokkom said in a message to Lawrence Garvin: RvS> 22 Apr 98 Lawrence Garvin wrote to Ron van Stokkom LG> Food for thought: If the primary purpose of -that- server is LG> to support a database-server, then I'd strongly recommend LG> configuring a -second- server to provide file and print LG> sharing services if at all possible. RvS> Because of financial reasons they didn't let me buy everthing i RvS> wanted. As a compromise we agreed to first set up a small network RvS> with 5 users. It does happen that way sometimes. LG> Not because one server would be incapable of providing all LG> services, but because you really don't want to complicate a LG> mission-critical database-server with other 'applications' that LG> might compromise the reliability of the system. RvS> What kind of reliability-issues do you expect? Sharing-problems? RvS> File-corruption? Security-problems? Not that I -expect- reliability-issues, Ron -- just that it eliminates the potential complications -if- they arise. Probably the most common I'd anticipate seeing though, is file sharing/file locking problems on a file-server that -may- necessiate a reboot of the server as the only 'fix' available during the work day. Other problems likely, but that could be properly prepared for, is overflows of the spool directories due to renegate print jobs. I would, as a minimum then, if you're going to use one server for file sharing, print spooling, and database maintenance, give serious consideration to placing the user files, print spool directory (/var/spool), and database files on three separate filesystems, so that if one does overflow it minimally impacts the others. But let me emphasize, I'm approaching this with a very conservative design philosophy. For a five-user test network, it's probably an insignificant issue. --- * Origin: lawrence@eforest.houston.tx.us | The Enchanted Forest (1:106/6018)