--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00001 Date: 09/08/96 From: SCOTT PARKS Time: 07:15am \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 6 times) Subj: DS0 data link? Mike Bilow wrote in a message to Scott Parks: MB> The line will likely be dropped on a four-wire cable that is MB> intended to be plugged into a DSU/CSU. The other side of MB> the DSU/CSU is likely to be a high speed serial connector MB> such as a V.35 jack, and this would be cabled to your MB> network router. Sounds like I may be able to test this CSU/DSU I picked up for $10 except I don't remember a mention of one in the previous setup before the remodel. Since we are "directly" connected to the main campus ... is it possible they would have the router on their end and we just use a bridge? Breaking out my book again ... it says a Bridge "keeps" a table for filtering local from external addresses. Is this something you have to program like you would SNMP on a Hub? Scott Parks sparks@helix.eskimo.com --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: Helix BBS - Support National Public Radio (1:343/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00002 Date: 09/08/96 From: SCOTT PARKS Time: 07:48am \/To: BRUCE LANE (Read 6 times) Subj: DS0 data link? Bruce Lane wrote in a message to Scott Parks: BL> The pigtail they'll leave will, in all likelihood, not BL> be a pigtail at all; it will likely be an RJ48 jack. The BL> standard wiring plan of an RJ48 calls for the transmit and BL> receive pairs to be on pins 1/2, and 7/8 respectively. Sounds suspiciously like the wire coming off the back of this CSU/DSU I have here. The jack is the same as RJ45 but only uses the 4 wires you mentioned above. Any idea if older CSU/DSU's are limited in speed like modems? I assume if you use them they should be more of less a matching pair on either end? Mine must be 6-7 years old. BL> You'll need a bridge or a brouter (combination BL> bridge/router). You may or may not also need a DSU/CSU. I have a feeling we won't need a router ... but then again ;) Scott Parks sparks@helix.eskimo.com --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: Helix BBS - Support National Public Radio (1:343/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00003 Date: 09/08/96 From: MIKE BILOW Time: 08:17pm \/To: CHRIS HOLTEN (Read 6 times) Subj: WIN NT.. Chris Holten wrote in a message to Mike Bilow: AH> Now that Win NT 4.0 is out, I'm considering switching AH> over to it-- I'm currently running Win 95 w/Lantastic for AH> Win 95 on my server, my clients run Lantastic 6.0. The AH> network performance is pathetic. MB> NT is not going to win any prizes in the speed MB> department. I don't know if there are business MB> restrictions on you, but one possibility that will MB> significantly outperform NT as a file and print server MB> is Unix Samba running on Linux, all of which is CH> Are you running NT Mike? I find your statement about NT's CH> server speed curious. NT Server with 10bt networks is every CH> bit as fast or faster than my Novell 3.12 server using CH> Window 95 and Windows NT workstations. It certainly knocks CH> the socks off of Lantatastic and Win 95 servers. I don't have NT running here. We've tried it, and it has basically proven to be a disaster. If you throw enough hardware at it, especially a fast CPU and a lot of RAM, then you can get it to the point where it is in the same league as a NetWare server simply because it will be I/O-bound. NetWare also needs a lot of RAM because it uses memory with gross inefficiency, since it has no virtual memory capability and a fixed disk space to memory cache ratio. NetWare is also unsuited to use as an application server, both because of its lack of virtual memory and its lack of supervisor/user memory protection. However, for file and print services, NetWare is the standard of comparison for speed. I do not consider Windows 95 an appropriate server platform for anything but the smallest and most casual network. I also do not consider Lantastic a serious contender as a network server. Saying that NT is a better network server that either Windows 95 or Lantastic is like saying that a Volkswagen Beetle has a lot more power than a bicycle: it may be true, but it is not a fair or meaningful standard of comparison. CH> Novell's DOS clients, both 3.1x (IPX/NETX) and 4.x (VLM) are CH> considerablyfaster than MS's DOS clients as MS's DOS clients CH> suck, but I would not judge the speed of an NT server based CH> on DOS clients if a person is using Windows 95 or Windows CH> for Workgroups. It -really- depends on what you are using CH> for workstation software/operating system. Microsoft just CH> doesn't seem to be able to write fast tight or even care CH> about having fast tight DOS client software. Even with lousy CH> MS DOS clients, NT is considerably faster and more stable CH> than lantastic 6.0. You get around this problem in benchmark tests by loading the server with a lot of clients. The whole point of such a thing is determine the saturation point of the system. An example of such a test which received a lot of notice was PC Week's head-to-head comparison of NetWare 4.1, NT Server 3.51, and OS/2 Warp Server 5.0 published in April 1996. PC Week found that OS/2 Warp Server could perform file and print services for multiple clients at approximately the same speed as NetWare 4.1, quite an accomplishment for OS/2 Warp Server since part of the reason for NetWare's speed is its lack of virtual memory and memory protection. However, NT lagged well behind both, and PC Week actually had to put NT onto a four-CPU machine before it started to approach the speed of OS/2 Warp Server on one CPU. This kind of appallingly bad performance in benchmark testing is consistent with my experience regarding NT. MB> freeware. InfoMagic recently announced that they would MB> bundle Linux, Samba, and some other handy stuff into MB> the "InfoMagic Workgroup Server" for $75 on CD-ROM. CH> This sounds good. Are you running it and have you CH> benchmarked it against Novell and NT server?? The InfoMagic Workgroup Server is not actually a product, but is a convenient bundle of other products, and I do not believe it is actually available yet. I have run Linux and Samba, and the performance is very good. However, I have never benchmarked Samba against commercial network servers, since I tend to favor Samba as a solution where hardware and software cost are the major concerns. Usually, I have run Samba on fairly slow server platforms, sometimes as slow as a 386SX, on which it would be inappropriate to test it against NT. To be perfectly honest, it never occurred to me to benchmark Samba against the commercial server products simply because it is not really competitive. I've never seen a company trying to decide whether to install Samba or NT, for example. Samba has a following among individuals setting up home networks and among extremely cost-conscious users such as schools and non-profit organizations. -- Mike --- * Origin: N1BEE BBS +1 401 944 8498 V.34/V.FC/V.32bis/HST16.8 (1:323/107) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00004 Date: 09/07/96 From: CHRIS HOLTEN Time: 06:45am \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 6 times) Subj: WIN NT.. MB> Andrew Herrmann wrote in a message to All: AH> Now that Win NT 4.0 is out, I'm considering switching AH> over to it-- I'm currently running Win 95 w/Lantastic for AH> Win 95 on my server, my clients run Lantastic 6.0. The AH> network performance is pathetic. MB> NT is not going to win any prizes in the speed MB> department. I don't know if there are business MB> restrictions on you, but one possibility that will MB> significantly outperform NT as a file and print server MB> is Unix Samba running on Linux, all of which is Are you running NT Mike? I find your statement about NT's server speed curious. NT Server with 10bt networks is every bit as fast or faster than my Novell 3.12 server using Window 95 and Windows NT workstations. It certainly knocks the socks off of Lantatastic and Win 95 servers. Novell's DOS clients, both 3.1x (IPX/NETX) and 4.x (VLM) are considerablyfaster than MS's DOS clients as MS's DOS clients suck, but I would not judge the speed of an NT server based on DOS clients if a person is using Windows 95 or Windows for Workgroups. It -really- depends on what you are using for workstation software/operating system. Microsoft just doesn't seem to be able to write fast tight or even care about having fast tight DOS client software. Even with lousy MS DOS clients, NT is considerably faster and more stable than lantastic 6.0. MB> freeware. InfoMagic recently announced that they would MB> bundle Linux, Samba, and some other handy stuff into MB> the "InfoMagic Workgroup Server" for $75 on CD-ROM. This sounds good. Are you running it and have you benchmarked it against Novell and NT server?? --- Maximus/NT 3.01b1 * Origin: Windows NT P_O_W_E_R_E_D! 33,600bps (1:303/1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00005 Date: 09/07/96 From: CHRIS HOLTEN Time: 07:07am \/To: MIKE ROBINSON (Read 6 times) Subj: Lan's MR> I have three computer that I would like to lan togather. One has MR> windows 95, one has windows 3.1 and the other is a BBS in DOS. MR> How can I do this? and keep the cost down... Get 3 cheap NE-2000 compatible cards with BNC (Co-ax) connectors). Cable the three computers together. Set up Win95 for networking (It's built-in) and either put W95 or Windows for Workgroups on the Windows 3.1 computer, set up it's networking and use the Microsoft LAN client on the DOS machine. On the two compters with Windows95/wfwg you'll be able to share hard drives and printers. On the DOS machine you will not be able to share hard drives and printers, but that would be about as cheap a network setup and as easy to do as you are going to find. --- Maximus/NT 3.01b1 * Origin: Windows NT P_O_W_E_R_E_D! 33,600bps (1:303/1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00006 Date: 09/06/96 From: RAY SULICH Time: 07:00am \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 6 times) Subj: Win95 net help >1. OS/2 and Windows 95 use different default network names. You need to enter >the same name manually on each side so that they see each other. >2. OS/2 does not present a browsable server to Windows in all cases, so you may >need to enter the UNC name of the shared resource manually. This would be the >"\\SERVERNAME\SHAREDDRIVE" sort of name. Well the automatic part didn't happen because I didn't install the network features of "95" when I originally installed it. So, I'm not sure I have the correct drivers installed. I installed the driver for the NE2000 NIC, and the NETbios as a client but no luck so far. I'll try what you suggested above. Ray --- OLXWin 1.00b * Origin: Straight Board BBS (FidoNet) VA BCH VA 804-468-6454 (1:271/115) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00007 Date: 08/31/96 From: JAMES JEFFREYS Time: 09:15pm \/To: BEN BERGERON (Read 6 times) Subj: Ethernet Network/W95 > I have two machines runing WFWG with MaxTech NX-16 (16bit NE-2000 > comp.) > network cards. Everything works fine. I upgraded one machine to W95 > and guess what, no more network. It turned out that W95 needed a > special driver for the card. Even worse, as best I could find the > driver didn't exist. Neither MaxTech nor Microsoft had one. I hope > you'r problem isn't the same. I wound up uninstlling W95. > BB> Very wise choice taking WIN95 out...... LONG LIVE DOS! ...ah... BB> Bummer bout the Driver tho.... did either of them hint of a driver BB> being made any time soon? I didn't ever get around to talking to tech support on the phone. I got too fustrated with the situation, but did search all over at MaxTech's & Microsoft's driver librarys. I will probably take a look around again in the future anyway. I only got W95 beacuse I needed another copy of an OS (put together spare parts to make another machine) luckly I found someone to trade it for a copy of WFWG. I agree with you about DOS , I still go there to do a lot of things. Some other folks suggested upgrading my net cards. I could have done that, but at the time the added expense of buying 2 $100 +/- cards (to replace working units that only cost $15-$20 and worked fine otherwise) didn't seem to be worth the trouble. ... RAM = Rarely Adequate Memory --- Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: [704-522-1018] Moobasi - Charlotte's Genealogy HQtrs 1:379/50.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00008 Date: 09/07/96 From: JIM PALMER Time: 06:54am \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 6 times) Subj: Peer-to-peer In a message dated 09-06-96 MIKE BILOW wrote to JIM PALMER: JP> My XTerms cannot use BootP, just TFTP... MB> Well, that's really stupid. BOOTP and TFTP and clearly intended to be MB> used in concert, and this is why a significant part of BOOTP has to do MB> with identifying the source of the boot image to be obtained with TFTP. BOOTP was designed to help TFTP, which predates it, I do use BOOTP on my external JetDirect Cards, (one reason I prefer the internals) but the xterms only use TFTP. --- * TIMM 1.0.6 * "Accountability is Un-American!!" - Opus --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: The Privy Ledged BBS, Kearns, Utah (801) 966-6270 (1:311/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00009 Date: 09/07/96 From: JIM PALMER Time: 06:57am \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 6 times) Subj: Peer-to-peer In a message dated 09-06-96 MIKE BILOW wrote to JIM PALMER: MB> I never contended that Sun was as bad as Microsoft. I'm not even sure MB> that I would suspect Sun of being ill-intentioned. However, Sun makes MB> sure that they retain the right and power to do exactly the kind of MB> harmful things Microsoft does, even if they never actually do them. I think we should agree to disagree here, I retain the right and power to be a murderer, but so long as I use those rights responsibly, I see no reason to brand me a 'murderer', just because I retain my second admendment rights. I would think I would need to see some flaw in Sun's behavior before I disaproved of their informal attitude to standards. --- * TIMM 1.0.6 * Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: The Privy Ledged BBS, Kearns, Utah (801) 966-6270 (1:311/5.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: DDD00010 Date: 09/07/96 From: CHRIS STONE Time: 11:34pm \/To: ALL (Read 6 times) Subj: Backup Software for Netware 4.10 Hi there, All! Well, an incompetent CNA stricks. (and they are nowhere to be found as luck would have it) I purchased a 10 station system and server setup (with all software) from a local company. They put in a Colorado Memory Systems 1400 1.4 gig tape backup system. Had a case the other day that I needed to restore some files. Tried and failed. Did some checking and the software docs said NOT to use the Colorado Backup software with Netware NDS due to possible critical server crashes. Checked their web site and ftp site for new software and found none available. Just found more warnings about using the software with NDS. Need to know if there is any backup software available that will work with he 1400 tape drive. Really don't want to have to purchase another drive if I don't have to. Anyone know of any? Regards, Chris Stone -=-=-=-=-=- High Mountain Software, TBIE Internet Gateway Services Internet: cstone@hms.com, cstone@dimensional.com WWW: http://www.hms.com/hms -=-=-=-=-=- * WCE 2.1G1/2143 * Abstinence should always be practiced in moderation. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: The Bailey Information Exchange BBS, 28.8k v.fc (1:104/825.0)