--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1R00009 Date: 01/22/98 From: MIKE BILOW Time: 03:06am \/To: PAT GLENN (Read 3 times) Subj: Upgrade Pat Glenn wrote in a message to All: PG> We are considering upgrading our network at our office. PG> At present we are on a peer to peer system, using ethernet PG> with Windows'95 internal networking for software. We have a PG> small network consisting of 6 units, one of which is PG> primarily for file storage and print serving. The others PG> are clients. (although peer is an option) What - if any - PG> would be the advantage of going to a hub type system. Is PG> there any compelling reason (speed , stability, etc.) to PG> give an upgrade any serious consideration? The main advantages of using a centralized server are cost and management. It is cheaper to buy one really large hard drive and supply it with proper tape backup hardware than to upgrade each workstation. It is also a lot easier to manage software and data stored at a central point, including making sure that it is backed up, than to worry about this on every workstation. Other benefits, such as easier software upgrades and better security, are also an issue. However, for a six-node network, this is probably not a big deal. Microsoft's new Small Business Server is an interesting product that might suit your needs. It is basically a bundle of Windows NT, a 25-user license, and some ancillary software that is part of the BackOffice Suite. It has a simplified installation and should be considerably easier to install than the old Windows NT. Since you are already on SMB/CIFS networking because of your peer-to-peer system, you should probably stick to that. Depending upon cost, there are other options you might want to consider. OS/2 Warp Server is on the list, as it would provide SMB/CIFS networking for about half the cost of a basic Windows NT server in your configuration. Linux with Samba would be free, but could involve considerable configuration work. If there is anyone in the office who is familiar with Unix, however, it is a very realistic choice. Caldera and other companies provide support and nice boxes for Linux, making it more palatable to commercial nvironments. -- 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: F1S00000 Date: 01/13/98 From: CHARLES MILLER Time: 10:14am \/To: TOM RUDDY (Read 3 times) Subj: NOVELL & WD 6.4GIG RE: NOVELL & WD 6.4GIG BY: Tom Ruddy to Mike Bilow on Mon Jan 12 1998 12:03 am > MB> If you get out of the ISA world, PCI EIDE controllers can do bus- > MB> mastering DMA. This uses the full speed of the bus, > MB> bypassing the motherboard DMA controller hardware. > > Are PCI EIDE readily used for duplexing drives? As in low cost servers? An > is there enough of a cost savings (over all scsi equipment) to justify using > all EIDE hardware? (With no thought given to any performance hits.) > > Tom Ruddy > Not that I have seen. I tried the EIDE with 4 drives and when one went out, it killed the whole server. With SCSI, it will keep humming along since you don't have to worry about master/slave combinations. And with the price of SCSI dropping, SCSI is looking better and better. Charles --- Synchronet+SBBSecho v1.22 * Origin: System Shock: 805-659-5733 & 805-647-7582 (1:206/2406) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00001 Date: 01/22/98 From: SCOTT PARKS Time: 07:11am \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: 3com PCI garbage info in LAN INFO -=> Note: Copied (from: novell) by Scott Parks using timEd. When I first setup our new server (HP LD Pro) I found the setup CD did not support NW3.11 so I was unable to setup partitions or install the network card (Intel PCI) with it. Since I had a 3com PCI and the drivers and knew all the load commands I swapped the cards. It wasn't until a week or so later that I looked at the LAN INFO in Monitor and when I look at the card's protocol info it displays garbage and will crash the server. Since everything works if I don't probe the card info with Monitor I wonder if this is really a problem ... or possibly a problem with NW3.11 and PCI cards? --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: (1:343/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00002 Date: 01/22/98 From: SCOTT PARKS Time: 07:49am \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: Client errors -=> Note: Copied (from: novell) by Scott Parks using timEd. I'm suddenly getting client time-out errors with all 95 clients. The MS client times out and the new Intranetware client has reported "this is not a WIN32 application". Win3.11 clients on the same Lan segment seem to be having no problems. Server is NW3.11 --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: (1:343/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00003 Date: 01/22/98 From: SCOTT PARKS Time: 07:52am \/To: HARRY OLDENHUIS (Read 3 times) Subj: NW 4.11 Harry Oldenhuis wrote in a message to Scott Parks: HO> I would be inclined to install 4.11 in a box and connect it HO> to the network then you will find out how good the system HO> is. HO> Then at a laterdate change the whole lot over. It very easy to HO> install, and the Netadmin utils are a breeze to use . I did and I'm impressed with 4.11. Now to get a better handle on NDS ;) --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: (1:343/70) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00004 Date: 01/21/98 From: GEORGE FLIGER Time: 06:19am \/To: WILLIAM HARGRAVE (Read 3 times) Subj: anyone recognise this? On 16 Jan 98 02:54pm, William Hargrave wrote to Louie Tarpo: WH> Hello Louie! WH> On Thu 15 Jan 1998 at 02:22 you wrote the following to Scott WH> Parks: LT> On the card it has a switch on the outside plate that has "EN" and LT> "TP" options... do you know what this means? WH> At a guess, Twisted Pair, and EN..something :) (E)ther(N)et? George ... An alcoholic is a person who drinks more than his own physician. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.4P [Reg] * Origin: Chipper Clipper * Networking fun! (1:137/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00005 Date: 01/21/98 From: GEORGE FLIGER Time: 06:20am \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 3 times) Subj: Win95 no dialogs ? On 19 Jan 98 10:48pm, Mike Bilow wrote to Scott Parks: MB> Scott Parks wrote in a message to George Fliger: SP> I got that program since we are switching back to MS Clients MB> For accessing NetWare servers, I have had far better results MB> with the Novell Client for Windows 95 than with the Microsoft MB> Client. Why are you switching back to MS? I'm really MB> surprised to see that. I agree. The MS Client for Netware Networks really sucks in its support and functionality. George ... Experiments should be reproducable, they should all fail in the same way. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.4P [Reg] * Origin: Chipper Clipper * Networking fun! (1:137/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00006 Date: 01/21/98 From: GEORGE FLIGER Time: 06:34am \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 3 times) Subj: Win95 logins? On 19 Jan 98 10:50pm, Mike Bilow wrote to Scott Parks: MB> Scott Parks wrote in a message to Mike Bilow: SP> .. it will prompt SP> you for a login, map just that one drive .. and then run. MB> That should not be possible: the system login script should MB> always execute for the user, no matter how they log in. One MB> possibility is that you are running on NW 4 with NDS active, MB> and the login normally proceeds as NDS but the special login MB> proceeds as Bindery emulation. SP> It's Netware 3.11 and if you don't check "run logon scripts" SP> _or_ just bypass the login screen .... you end up with only SP> your local drives in "my computer". With this program ... SP> it gives a WIN login (client I'm using now) and then runs. SP> If you then look at "my computer", only one additional SP> drive is mapped. MB> Maybe this is some oddball NW 3.11 issue. I have almost no MB> experience running Windows 95 clients on NW 3.11, as all but MB> one server accessed by Windows 95 clients are on either NW 3.12 MB> or NW 4.11 now. The exception is, believe it or not, our own MB> test server, which is a 386DX-20 that has been around forever. MB> I don't recall ever testing the Novell client against this MB> server, either. MB> I did have to implement a huge number of required fixes and MB> patches on the NW 3.11 server to support Windows 95 clients of MB> any type, all of which are basically the same as you would need MB> to support OS/2 clients on NW 3.11 -- fast file open handling, MB> long file name support, and so forth. SP> Like I said ... never seen it before! MB> Neither have I. I would think this this is the customary scenario as seen by any client running from a workstation for a connection to a Netware server. The client (be it NETX, VLM, CLIENT32) would do an ATTACH to the server, providing a single drive letter (F:) for the purpose of running the LOGIN CLU. This one drive letter and directory (LOGIN) are the only items accessable on the server until properly logged in and/or authenticated. BTW, there are no required patches or fixes to NW3.11 to support Windows95 clients. All the patches are to fix or enhance CLU's and the OS itself from its original shipped coding. None of them are specific to Windows95 or OS/2. There are some .DLLs that need changing in the OS/2 Netware Requester v2.12 itself if you wish to use it with NW3.11 (must go back to older versions that shipped with Requester v2.11) since those were modified for 3.12 and 4.x. Also, long filename support is not required unless you're planning on using it. I've been running my 3.11 server for quite a number of years and currently have NT4 Workstation, NT4 Server, OS/2 Warp 4, Windows95 and WFW tied into it quite nicely without having to go through any special steps concerning support. I only insured that the Minimum OS Updates as published by Novell have been applied to the server. I know I'm going to have to upgrade soon. I just hate having to do so. This server's been so stable for so long! :) George ... British boobs are the best in the world. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.4P [Reg] * Origin: Chipper Clipper * Networking fun! (1:137/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00007 Date: 01/22/98 From: ROY J. TELLASON Time: 12:49pm \/To: MIKE BILOW (Read 3 times) Subj: NOVELL & WD 6.4GIG Mike Bilow wrote in a message to Tom Ruddy: MB> Tom Ruddy wrote in a message to Mike Bilow: MB> I would not recommend EIDE servers for any number of reasons. MB> I would also consider "low-cost duplexing" to be an oxymoron. TR> Understood. But the question is; Is it possible to duplex TR> drives (two drives two controllers) using the EIDE interface. I TR> would ASSuME you would be best off using a PCI EIDE controller TR> for at least one controller to avoid using the secondary ports TR> on most motherboards which usually sit on IRQ15. MB> Yes, you can do this. It is critical that you use one IDE MB> channel for each drive in the duplex set. If you put both MB> drives in a mirrored set on the same IDE channel, then you will MB> get pathologically slow performance because there is a fairly MB> long transition delay when selecting which device on an IDE MB> channel is active. TR> I wouldn't practice this. I am merely morbidly curious. MB> I wouldn't practice this, either. Not talking about duplexing here (whatever that is), but this seems to have some bearing on an issue that popped up recently elsewhere. I currently have two IDE drives sitting on the first channel, and a cdrom set up as master on the second channel that's in this machine. It's been suggested to me that I might switch the second HD to the secondary channel and put the cdrom on the first, as a slave drive. What you're saying here seems to suggest that I'd get a performance boost by doing so. Am I reading this right? email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com --- * Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-432-0764 (1:270/615) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 193 LAN Ref: F1S00008 Date: 01/21/98 From: NICHOLAS COAD Time: 06:45pm \/To: ALL (Read 3 times) Subj: TCP/IP, NT server and RAS Hello All. Ok, I'm running NT server 4.0, and I intend to provide a few friends internet access via my new ADSL connection. ADSL is brought in through TP connectors to an ADSL "modem", and as I understand it, it's just like dialing up to the internet. What I'd like to do is allow a user to dial up to the NT Remote Access Server and then establish a TCP connection through a proxy server to the internet. The connection through ADSL is 7-24 so no other connection will have to be made besides the original bindings for the network card dedicated to the ADSL. What a mouthful. Does anyone know of any way to do this, or has attempted it before? Any information would be appreciated. If anyone knows of a better area to post this message, please let me know. Thanks. Nicholas --- GoldED/W32 3.00.Beta1 UNREG * Origin: Erkware BBS - Yes, we can eat that part of the moose 1:163/428)