From owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi Mon Nov 2 08:07:13 1992
Status: RO
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["2917" "" "02" "November" "1992" "16:35:59" "-0300" "Dan Shearer"
"ccdps@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au " nil "60" "LAN Manager over TCP/IP" "^From:" nil nil "11"])
Received: from joker.cs.hut.fi by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with SMTP id AA02273
(5.65c8/HUTCS-S 1.4 for ); Mon, 2 Nov 1992 08:07:04 +0200
Received: by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA14670; Mon, 2 Nov 92 08:06:42 +0200
Received: from roll.Levels.UniSA.EDU.AU by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA14655; Mon, 2 Nov 92 08:06:27 +0200
Received: from lux.levels.unisa.edu.au by Levels.UniSA.Edu.Au (PMDF #2428 ) id
<01GQOLBMMPTS99F1XU@Levels.UniSA.Edu.Au>; Mon, 2 Nov 1992 16:36:10 +1030
Received: by lux.levels.unisa.edu.au (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06284 for
linux-activists@niksula.hut.fi
Sender: owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
X-Note1: Remember to put 'X-Mn-Key: normal' to your mail body or header
Message-Id: <9211020606.AA06284@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au>
X-Envelope-To: linux-activists@niksula.hut.fi
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL2]
From: ccdps@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au (Dan Shearer)
To: linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
Subject: LAN Manager over TCP/IP
Date: 02 Nov 1992 16:35:59 -0300 (BST)
X-Mn-Key: NET
G'day Linux TCP/IP'ers,
I'd like to try an idea out on you.
First of all, think of how many users out there want servers for a LAN
servers for their DOS LAN. Most of them just do file and printer sharing,
although Microsoft and others are trying to tell everyone that rpc technology
is the direction of the future.
Next, think of the state of play with DOS LANs that have multiple protocol
stacks. As far as I am aware, there is only one major contender, Microsoft.
Their LAN Manager product is not by any means a world leader in sales but it
can handle TCP/IP, Decnet, Appletalk, OSI protocols, XNS, NETbeui as well as
a number of other protocol stacks. This is what the new Novell product is
supposed to be able to do. Microsoft have stopped nearly all development work
on their current release on LAN Manager, since it comes built in to Windows NT.
So, if you want to have a LAN that can operate with TCP/IP that is by a large
company, you have one choice, Microsoft. You can choose to have a Unix box
running LAN Manager (mostly HP or AT&T I think) or an OS/2 box. Neither will
be particularly up-to-date technology, until whenever it is Windows NT comes
out. It will *certainly* cost a lot of money.
I can only speak for the OS/2 LAN Manager servers, but they are not very
stable under load. They run OS/2 1.3.1, which is old, and as I have explained,
things aren't likely to get better in the short-to medium term.
Therefore, I believe that if we could get a Linux to support DOS sessions for
file and printer sharing, it would be an extrememly attractive solution. Of
course, initially you would have to purchase the workstation licences until
free workstation software was written (if ever) but avoiding the purchase of
the OS/2 and LAN Manager package would be a great advance, and many would find
a Unix environment attractive for a server. I would, and I work where there
are hundreds of users using Lanman under OS/2, and quite a few more using the
very similar Pathworks product under VMS and Ultrix.
It is important to note that the specifications for LAN Manager are well
documented and understood, are not very complex. They have even published
their LanMan Programmers Toolkit on the Internet.
Basically, a LM server is:
- A stable multitasking operating system
- Multi-user extensions, with user permissions and other security features
- Ethernet capability, with at least TCP/IP protocols
- Capability to maintain virtual DOS file connections over TCP/IP, mapping
them on to the server's file system
Linux only lacks (in principle :) the last item, which presumably would
be a daemon monitoring TCP/IP requests on a particular port.
What thinks the net?
--
Dan Shearer email: Dan.Shearer@UniSA.edu.au
Information Technology Branch Phone: +61 8 302 3479
University of South Australia Fax : +61 8 302 3385
From owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi Mon Nov 2 12:18:59 1992
Status: RO
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["3353" "" "2" "November" "92" "09:43:37" "MEZ"
"LINUXMAIL@nw42.wiwi.uni-bielefeld.de" "LINUXMAIL@nw42.wiwi.uni-bielefeld.de" nil
"75" "Re: LAN Manager over TCP/IP" "^From:" nil nil "11"])
Received: from joker.cs.hut.fi by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with SMTP id AA03837
(5.65c8/HUTCS-S 1.4 for ); Mon, 2 Nov 1992 12:18:51 +0159
Received: by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA19409; Mon, 2 Nov 92 12:18:34 +0200
Received: from comparex.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA19394; Mon, 2 Nov 92 12:17:43 +0200
Received: from Charon1.HRZ.Uni-Bielefeld.DE by comparex.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de
(IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with TCP; Mon, 02 Nov 92 12:17:51 CET
Received: From HRZ_ADMIN/WORKQUEUE by Charon1.HRZ.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
via Charon-4.0-VROOM with IPX id 100.921102111421.1568;
02 Nov 92 11:15:56 -100
Message-Id:
Sender: owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
X-Note1: Remember to put 'X-Mn-Key: normal' to your mail body or header
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
From: LINUXMAIL@nw42.wiwi.uni-bielefeld.de
To: linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
Subject: Re: LAN Manager over TCP/IP
Date: 2 Nov 92 09:43:37 MEZ-1MESZ
X-Mn-Key: NET
[...]
>
> So, if you want to have a LAN that can operate with TCP/IP that is by a large
> company, you have one choice, Microsoft. You can choose to have a Unix box
> running LAN Manager (mostly HP or AT&T I think) or an OS/2 box. Neither will
> be particularly up-to-date technology, until whenever it is Windows NT comes
> out. It will *certainly* cost a lot of money.
While I'm a newbie to Linux, I can say some things on DOS nets.
As far as NetWare is concerned, well, they support multiple protocol
stacks (TCP/IP, at least). There are modules to enable NFS, LPR/LPD,
FTP --- You name it. And there's portable NetWare --- ported to the
HP 9000 series, and VMS, as far as I know.
Then, there's Banyan Vines, which runs under Un*x (but don't ask me
which flavour...). So, MS Lan Manager clearly isn't the only choice...
but I agree that they *certainly* cost a lot of money.
> I can only speak for the OS/2 LAN Manager servers, but they are not
very
> stable under load. They run OS/2 1.3.1, which is old, and as I have explained,
> things aren't likely to get better in the short-to medium term.
Let me assure You that NetWare *is* stable under load (no, I'm not a
NetWare sales person (-; ).
[...]
>
> It is important to note that the specifications for LAN Manager are well
> documented and understood, are not very complex. They have even published
> their LanMan Programmers Toolkit on the Internet.
>
> Basically, a LM server is:
>
> - A stable multitasking operating system
> - Multi-user extensions, with user permissions and other security features
> - Ethernet capability, with at least TCP/IP protocols
> - Capability to maintain virtual DOS file connections over TCP/IP, mapping
> them on to the server's file system
>
> Linux only lacks (in principle :) the last item, which presumably would
> be a daemon monitoring TCP/IP requests on a particular port.
I'd say it also lacks the smart network-OS-specific caching
algorithms (please correct me if I'm wrong). Recently, there was a
network-OS comparison in a german magazine. NetWare came out best
(only by a margin, though); next was Vines. The reason why NetWare
was considered better than Vines were the good caching algorithms
they employ, Vines using Un*x' caching mechanisms. The quality of the
caching algorithms (or lack thereof) is a major reason why a network
OS slows down under load.
> What thinks the net?
Well, I think it's certainly worth trying to use a Linux box as a DOS
file server. But, for the time being, I'd rather see my Linux box as
a client of our NetWare server (see, I'm the PC Network administrator
here, so forgive my being biased...) as well as a client of our Unix
hosts. People are looking desperately for an integrating platform for
both worlds, rather than (yet) another standard, I believe.
THat's what Novell are aiming at with their new 'unixware'.
Virtual IPX in Linux DOS boxes --- is that a question for the NET
channel or the DOS channel :-) ?
- Juergen Mennecke -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LINUXMAIL@nw42.wiwi.uni.bielefeld.de Beware!
Collective account for Linux explorers We're all newbies!
Fak. fuer Wirtschaftswissenschaften
Universitaet Bielefeld, Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi Mon Nov 2 13:02:30 1992
Status: RO
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["824" "Mon" "2" "November" "92" "11:00:24" "GMT" "Alan Cox"
"iiitac@pyr.swan.ac.uk" nil "25" "" "^From:" nil nil "11"])
Received: from joker.cs.hut.fi by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with SMTP id AA04144
(5.65c8/HUTCS-S 1.4 for ); Mon, 2 Nov 1992 13:02:27 +0200
Received: by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA20388; Mon, 2 Nov 92 13:02:07 +0200
Received: from santra.hut.fi by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA20382; Mon, 2 Nov 92 13:02:04 +0200
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by santra.hut.fi
(5.65c/8.0/TeKoLa) id AA03991; Mon, 2 Nov 1992 13:02:15 +0200
Received: from Finhutc.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX)
with BSMTP id 5120; Mon, 02 Nov 92 13:02:33 EET
Received: from UKACRL.BITNET by Finhutc.HUT.FI (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with
BSMTP id 5119; Mon, 02 Nov 92 13:02:32 EET
Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0547; Mon,
02 Nov 92 11:03:08 GMT
Received: from RL.IB by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3869; Mon, 02
Nov 92 11:03:07 GMT
Via: UK.AC.SWAN.PYR; 2 NOV 92 11:02:47 GMT
Message-Id: <8222.9211021100@pyr.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
X-Note1: Remember to put 'X-Mn-Key: normal' to your mail body or header
From: Alan Cox
To: linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 92 11:00:24 GMT
X-Mn-Key: NET
First:
======
I've been refining the crashing with accept: The following seems
to crash my system reliably. Create a local tcp socket, bind it
and set it non blocking then do while(1)accept(s,&buf,&bufsiz);
(Oh and sync before you run it).
Second: NFS etc
===============
Well the first comment is of course : use NFS, since Linux now
supports it, and several NFS packages for PC's exist. Secondly
have a look at the free pathworks server for unix someone posted
a long time back. Since pathworks is netbios based it should also
give you netbios over tcp for Linux. I've not tried it but it
would be worth a go.
Third: How/Where is SLIP
========================
I'm still waiting for the SLIP kernel driver so that I can begin
looking into chopping the ax.25 layer out of ka9q and adding it
to linux.
Alan
From owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi Tue Nov 3 00:59:03 1992
Status: RO
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
["793" "" "03" "November" "1992" "09:27:41" "-0300" "Dan Shearer"
"ccdps@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au " nil "19" "Re: LAN Manager over TCP/IP"
"^From:" nil nil "11"])
Received: from joker.cs.hut.fi by hutcs.cs.hut.fi with SMTP id AA08219
(5.65c8/HUTCS-S 1.4 for ); Tue, 3 Nov 1992 00:59:00 +0200
Received: by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA07086; Tue, 3 Nov 92 00:58:43 +0200
Received: from roll.Levels.UniSA.EDU.AU by joker.cs.hut.fi (5.65b/6.8/S-TeKoLa)
id AA07080; Tue, 3 Nov 92 00:58:25 +0200
Received: from lux.levels.unisa.edu.au by Levels.UniSA.Edu.Au (PMDF #2428 ) id
<01GQPKNUWM7K99EGXZ@Levels.UniSA.Edu.Au>; Tue, 3 Nov 1992 09:27:48 +1030
Received: by lux.levels.unisa.edu.au (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00710 for
linux-activists@niksula.hut.fi
Sender: owner-linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
X-Note1: Remember to put 'X-Mn-Key: normal' to your mail body or header
Message-Id: <9211022257.AA00710@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au>
X-Envelope-To: linux-activists@niksula.hut.fi
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL2]
From: ccdps@lux.levels.unisa.edu.au (Dan Shearer)
To: linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
Subject: Re: LAN Manager over TCP/IP
Date: 03 Nov 1992 09:27:41 -0300 (BST)
X-Mn-Key: NET
Coincidentally, Alan Cox wrote:
> have a look at the free pathworks server for unix someone posted
> a long time back. Since pathworks is netbios based it should also
> give you netbios over tcp for Linux. I've not tried it but it
> would be worth a go.
Well, getting netbios going on Linux would be a very big step forward in
DOS-world networking compatability! Furthermore, pathworks is very similar
to LAN Manager (and gettting more so all the time, it seems) so...
is this an almost-there solution for DOS print/file serving from Linux?
--
Dan Shearer email: Dan.Shearer@UniSA.edu.au
Information Technology Branch Phone: +61 8 302 3479
University of South Australia Fax : +61 8 302 3385