Linux-Misc Digest #431, Volume #24 Wed, 10 May 00 22:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sharing a DSL connection with Linux (Larry Tobosh)
Re: LILO 1024 cyl thing (Robert Heller)
Re: LILO 1024 cyl thing (Robert Heller)
Re: Using CD-R (Dances With Crows)
Re: Sharing a DSL connection with Linux (smn)
Re: Sharing a DSL connection with Linux (Brett Hall)
Re: Mounting Audio CD (Dances With Crows)
Re: Need solid facts: Why Linux over NT (Chad Lemmen)
Re: disk mirroring --- system image (smn)
Re: AMD/Intel... what's faster on Linux? (Torsten Evers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Tobosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Sharing a DSL connection with Linux
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 00:55:36 GMT
In article <8fcvo8$e37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
To share files between Linux and Windows machines you need to install
the SAMBA package. More on this you can find in th excellent book of
Fred Butzen & Christopher Hilton, "The LINUX Network"
(although it discusses older Linux distributions)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me with this question - even
> if just to point to some other source where this question has already
> been answered, as I'm sure I'm not the first one to ask it!
>
> I'd like to share my DSL connection among a small network of
computers.
>
> Here's what I *DO* know what to do. At home, I have a network of 2
> Windows boxes and 1 RedHat 6.2 Linux box. The DSL connection comes
> through a DSL modem and into a network card on my "main" box running
> Win98. From a second network card on that box, I have a line running
> to a hub. From the hub run connections to the other machines on the
> network.
>
> Using Win98's Internet Connection Sharing, this makes for a
> satisfactory arrangement. The "main" Win98 machine receives the DHCP
> address from my DSL provider, and the other machines on the network
are
> hard coded to a 192.168.0.x private address.
>
> Here's what I *DON'T* know how to do. At our church, a network of 5
> Windows machines and 1 RedHat 6.0 Linux box which has a DSL connection
> but is (at the moment) isolated from the rest of the network. The
> Linux box serves as the webserver for our church's website - it has
its
> own domain name and assigned IP address through DSL.
>
> I'd like to share the internet connection with the network of Windows
> machines. I imagine I can probably do this in a way similar to what I
> wrote above; the Linux machine would have 2 NICs - one for the DSL
> line, one to join the hub that the rest of the network uses.
>
> So:
> 1) Is this possible? And if so,
> 2) How do I go about setting it up? What's the Linux equivalent of
> Windows Internet Connection Sharing?
> 3) Or is there another way to accomplish what I want, while still
> allowing the Linux box to have the assigned IP address? (all other
> machines will have private IP addresses)
>
> Thanks to anyone who can either tell me how, or point me in the
> direction where I can learn this on my own!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Do you know what your software does?
Stay in control, support Free Software Foundation !
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO 1024 cyl thing
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:10:17 GMT
Rick Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
In a message on Wed, 10 May 2000 12:53:12 -0400, wrote :
RH> >
RH> > RH>
RH> > RH> I wrote earlier >> But how do I get the data to the partitions and have a
working file
RH> > RH> system afterwards?
RH> > RH> I had a feeling the installer was going to hypothetically be the one to do
all the work.
RH> > RH> But like I worded the question before how do I get the data into the
partitions like I
RH> > RH> want them. Lets say I have a functional Linux system on a source drive with
one big
RH> > RH> partition and I break up another disk into many partitions. These
partitions are ext2
RH> > RH> formatted. How do I get the directories I pick and choose from the source
disk to the
RH> > RH> destination disk and have a functional OS on the destination disk? In other
words I do
RH> > RH> the work of the installer from one disk to another and am basically wanting
to clone the
RH> > RH> OS but from one partition to many.
RH> > RH>
RH>
RH> Thanks again, Robert, for your attentiveness. I am sure it was an honest
oversight but you did
RH> not address this question. I am having a real time getting anyone to move into
this area and
RH> now you just skipped over it. Is it possible to copy directories yourself from
hda(with one big
RH> partition) to hdb(with multiple partitions) without any loss of functionality? If
not why not.
RH> I am trying to use a spare HD to backup my Linux system and I am beginning to
think that for
RH> some odd reason it is not going to be possible. What a shame when I very easily
use this method
RH> with Windows. I backup my Windows OS onto another HD with a software utility that
simply copies
RH> one partition to another. The backup is basically a clone of the primary and is
fully
RH> functional. That is the least expensive and most capable form of backup I am
aware of. I would
RH> like to be able to do the same with Linux. Is it possible?
Yes it is possible. Your original question was not clear. You were
talking about putting files in place manually as if you were the
installer, which does not make sense.
What you do is once you have partitioned the second disk, you mount the
vartious partitions somewhere in the directory tree, probably under
/mnt, unless you want these partitions permanently mounted:
/dev/hda1 (one giant partition) mounted as /
/dev/hdb1 (new root) mounted as /mnt/newroot
/dev/hdb2 (new swap) [not mounted]
/dev/hdb3 (new /usr) mounted as /mnt/newroot/usr
/dev/hdb4 [extended]
/dev/hdb5 (new /var) mounted as /mnt/newroot/var
/dev/hda6 (new /home) mounted as /mnt/newroot/home
Then you can do (in single user mode!):
bash# dump 0f - / | (cd /mnt/newroot; restore rf -)
And go for a walk, have a snack, etc. This could take a while.
When done, you can optionally edit /mnt/newroot/etc/fstab to contain:
/dev/hdb1 / ext2 defaults 1 1
/dev/hdb2 swap swap defaults 0 0
/dev/hdb3 /usr ext2 defaults 1 2
/dev/hdb5 /var ext2 defaults 1 2
/dev/hdb6 /home ext2 defaults 1 2
instead of
/dev/hda1 / ext2 defaults 1 1
Now you can reboot and type at the Lilo boot: prompt:
linux root=/dev/hdb1 single
to boot with the copy (clone) of the system.
RH>
RH> hoffy
RH>
RH>
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
------------------------------
From: Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO 1024 cyl thing
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:10:33 GMT
netcruiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
In a message on Thu, 11 May 2000 00:17:49 GMT, wrote :
n> Thanks for your response, Bill. I am currently running under Windows 95.
n> I thought I had the software, but it does not seem to expand the
n> directories and files. Nero states that it does not currently support
n> Rock Ridge extensions, but I suspect that cannot be the only thing I'm
n> doing wrong, since many others would have been caught in the same trap.
n> Neil mentioned something about EZ CD Creator, and I have heard of it
n> being that easy, but I don't have that software. Guess I'm just lucky...
It looks like Nero wants to *master* a new CD image. You don't want to
do that. It should not matter where Nero supports Rock Ridge
extensions, since that only matters if you are mastering a new CD image,
which not what you want to do. You have to somehow get Nero to skip the
mastering phase and go directly to the burn (write image) CD phase.
It *sounds* like the CDR software you have is less than optimal. The
*simple* solution is to just buy a CD. You don't have to spend the
$30-$90 for a boxed set. You can get a bare, ready-to-boot, CD image
from www.linuxmall.com or www.cheapbytes.com for $1.89+S&H.
n>
n> If the linux disc (5.2 Red Hat) has a dos or windows util to burn discs,
n> please let me know, as I do have that disc. I just want the latest
n> version :-> Also, do I need a separate boot image, or is that part of
n> the red hat 6.2 disk image?
If you have the 5.2 CD already, you *could* just use that to install RH
5.2, then download and install a RH 5.2 version of cdrecord, and use
that to burn a 6.2 CD (as Bill explains below) and then upgrade your
5.2 system to 6.2. A bit round about, but another possible solution.
The RH CDs are generally bootable. Or you can use the (incliuded as
D:\dosutils\rawrite.exe) RAWRITE.EXE program to make a boot floppy.
(D:\images\boot.img).
n>
n> Thanks again.
n>
n> Bill Unruh wrote:
n> >
n> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
n> >
n> > ]Ok, here's my game plan. Install Win '95. Install Linux using a boot
n> > ]diskette. After Linux is installed, download the new LILO and install it
n> > ](somehow). Does that sound good? My prob is a bit different than that at
n> > ]the start of this thread. I have not installed Linux yet, but I wish to,
n> > ]but beyond the 1024 limit. Will a boot disk allow me to do that? What is
n> > ]on the boot disk?
n> >
n> > If you have not yet installed Win, then why don't you partition your
n> > drive so that there is a 5MB partition below the 1024 limit onto which
n> > you will put
n> > /boot
n> > That way you do not have to worry!
n> >
n> > ]Also, I am trying desperately to get a CD created from an ISO image. I
n> > ]have Sony CD-Write and Nero at my disposal, but they seem to just copy
n> > ]the file to the disk. I want the .ISO file "expanded" so it has all
n> > ]files and directories on it. How would I go about doing that?
n> > ]Step-by-step would be nice, but I'll take anything I can get. Thanks.
n> >
n> > Under what? Under Linux do
n> > cdrecord -v speed=4 dev=3,0 /local/cdrom-image/image.raw
n> > where /local/cdrom-image/image.raw is the iso image.
n> >
n> > (chage the speed and device numbers to suit your system)
n>
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: Using CD-R
Date: 10 May 2000 21:15:09 EDT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 May 2000 19:56:51 -0400, root
<<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> shouted forth into the ether:
><doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
Oy! Fix your newsreader. HTML postings are NOT appreciated; they're a
pain in the arse for many people to read.
>I recently downloaded "cdrecord" and it said that if I wanted to use my
>CD-R, I need to load the module "ide-scsi" so that a scsi host is emulated.
>I've tried this from the LILO boot up, ("hdb=ide-scsi"), in my LILO.CONF
>file with "append", and at the prompt using "insmod". However, my
>CD-R is still seen as just any other IDE device (although it did pretend
>that my IDE Zip drive was SCSI) Does anyone have a possible solution
>for this? So far, I'm guessing that some cd drivers are compiled
>directly in the kernel and that their detecting my CD-ROM drives, but I
>don't know how to stop it -- but I don't even know if thats the problem...
That sounds like it could be the problem, but try this first with a
CD-ROM inserted:
# insmod ide-scsi
# insmod scsi_mod
# insmod sr_mod
# insmod sg_mod
# mount -t iso9660 /dev/scd0 /mnt/cdrom (or whatever...)
If this doesn't return any error messages, then things are cool and you
just need to add the line
alias scsi_hostadapter ide-scsi
to /etc/conf.modules . If you still get problems, then... hmm, having a
CD-RW on /dev/hdb is not reccommended, since you probably have your disk
on /dev/hda. The ide-scsi module can have problems with an IDE interface
that has one native IDE device and one IDE-SCSI emulated device. Put the
CD-RW on the secondary IDE controller if at all possible; throughput
to/from the HD will be better and your problem may disappear.
If not, recompile the kernel without IDE CD-ROM support, and the IDE
CD-ROM driver won't be able to grab anything. Post the results of what
you've tried... *AFTER* you've switched Nutscape to default to plain text
for news posting!
--
Matt G / Dances With Crows \###| You have me mixed up with more
There is no Darkness in Eternity \##| creative ways of being stupid,
But only Light too dim for us to see \#| as I have to run nothing but a
(Unless, of course, you're working with NT)\| burp in the butt. --MegaHAL
------------------------------
From: smn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Sharing a DSL connection with Linux
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:21:24 GMT
This is what I got into linux for... sharing a connection to the
internet with several computers.
First, get the second NIC working in the linux box.
Look in the IP-Masquerading HOW-TO. IPCHAINS is the way to go. Here's
how I get mine to work:
Added to /etc/rc.d/rc.local:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
ipchains -F
ipchains -P forward DENY
ipchains -A forward -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 0/0 -j MASQ
\-----^------/
+-----------> Your subnet here
Also, add to /etc/sysconfig/network:
NETWORKING=yes
GATEWAY="<your gw IP address here>"
GATEWAYDEV="eth0"
Be sure to configure your nameservers in /etc/resolv.conf.
** FIREWALL and USE TCP WRAPPERS **
Now all that's a start, but generally takes less than 15 minutes to
implement.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me with this question - even
> if just to point to some other source where this question has already
> been answered, as I'm sure I'm not the first one to ask it!
>
> I'd like to share my DSL connection among a small network of computers.
>
> Here's what I *DO* know what to do. At home, I have a network of 2
> Windows boxes and 1 RedHat 6.2 Linux box. The DSL connection comes
> through a DSL modem and into a network card on my "main" box running
> Win98. From a second network card on that box, I have a line running
> to a hub. From the hub run connections to the other machines on the
> network.
>
> Using Win98's Internet Connection Sharing, this makes for a
> satisfactory arrangement. The "main" Win98 machine receives the DHCP
> address from my DSL provider, and the other machines on the network are
> hard coded to a 192.168.0.x private address.
>
> Here's what I *DON'T* know how to do. At our church, a network of 5
> Windows machines and 1 RedHat 6.0 Linux box which has a DSL connection
> but is (at the moment) isolated from the rest of the network. The
> Linux box serves as the webserver for our church's website - it has its
> own domain name and assigned IP address through DSL.
>
> I'd like to share the internet connection with the network of Windows
> machines. I imagine I can probably do this in a way similar to what I
> wrote above; the Linux machine would have 2 NICs - one for the DSL
> line, one to join the hub that the rest of the network uses.
>
> So:
> 1) Is this possible? And if so,
> 2) How do I go about setting it up? What's the Linux equivalent of
> Windows Internet Connection Sharing?
> 3) Or is there another way to accomplish what I want, while still
> allowing the Linux box to have the assigned IP address? (all other
> machines will have private IP addresses)
>
> Thanks to anyone who can either tell me how, or point me in the
> direction where I can learn this on my own!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Never do Windows again with | Scott M. Nolde
Linux! No streaks, haze or | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
glaze! |
9:01pm up 21:49, 1 user, load average: 1.06, 1.10, 1.04
------------------------------
From: Brett Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Sharing a DSL connection with Linux
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:23:51 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <snip>
> So:
> 1) Is this possible? And if so,
> 2) How do I go about setting it up? What's the Linux equivalent of
> Windows Internet Connection Sharing?
> 3) Or is there another way to accomplish what I want, while still
> allowing the Linux box to have the assigned IP address? (all other
> machines will have private IP addresses)
>
What you want to use is called IP Masquerade, there is a lot of info at
http://ipmasq.cjb.net/.
-brett
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: Mounting Audio CD
Date: 10 May 2000 21:32:32 EDT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:11:28 GMT, Mike Pepera
<<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> shouted forth into the ether:
>Whenever I try to mount an audio CD, I get an error saying that there
>is a bad superblock or wrong filesystem on the CD. I can play it with
>the KDE CD-Player, but I can not mount it.
>I can mount all of the data Cds fine, but I am having problems with
>the audio ones.
>Any ideas?
mount(8) To integrate a filesystem into a Unix directory tree.
Audio CDs don't have filesystems on them. They have a TOC and between 1
and 99 tracks consisting of 16-bit PCM data in big-endian format at 44.1
KHz. Not even a minimal ISO9660 or FAT filesystem. Hence they can't be
mounted. There was some discussion on the linux-kernel mailing list few
weeks back explaining why you will never be able to "mount" an audio CD.
If you want to extract (rip) .wav files from audio CDs, then you need to
get the nice cdparanoia program. http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/ and read
the directions. There are frontends to cdparanoia, like GRIP, which may
make the audio extraction easier. HTH,
--
Matt G / Dances With Crows \###| You have me mixed up with more
There is no Darkness in Eternity \##| creative ways of being stupid,
But only Light too dim for us to see \#| as I have to run nothing but a
(Unless, of course, you're working with NT)\| burp in the butt. --MegaHAL
------------------------------
From: Chad Lemmen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need solid facts: Why Linux over NT
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:31:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Morrissey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need to put together a presentation to convince management to use
> Linux rather than NT. To do this properly and succeed, I need solid
> facts and figures on why Linux is the better OS. Any help or pointers
> to
> URL's that cover this topic would be well appreciated!
>
> -Jim
>
Take a look at this article Bill Campbell is working on. It will give
you some good reasons
http://www.celestial.com/iloveyou/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: smn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: disk mirroring --- system image
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 01:40:53 GMT
When I moved my RH62 from a 4G drive to an 18G drive, here's what I
did... no special lilo tricks or anything that requires magic.
1. Install the new drive on the system. Boot to linux as normal.
2. Partition and format the new hard drive using fdisk, mkfs.ext2,
mkswap, etc....
3. Shutdown. Swap the hard drives.
4. Boot to the linux CD and install a _minimal_ linux installation on
only the new drive (now should be /dev/hda).
5. Reboot to the new linux install. Verify it to boot to your
satisfaction.
6. Backup the /etc/lilo.conf and /etc/fstab and /etc/modules.conf files
to a safe location.
7. Mount the old linux /boot on the new linux install. Do a "cp -av
/mnt/oldbootdir/* /boot/." to copy all the boot stuff over. Read the
"man cp" for the -a option.
7. Do the above for the other partitions as well. Don't forget the -a
option.
9. Modify the /etc/lilo.conf file to reflect any changed partitons,
etc... do the same for /etc/fstab. lilo.
10. Reboot. Hopefully by now you'll have all the old data moved to a
new hard drive and it's bootable. You may have to add/remove a link in
the /etc/rc.d/rc[1-5] directories.
Try this and see how it works for you. It's worked well for me twice
now as I've slowly added stuff to my linux computer.
- Scott
shahzad bhatti wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am swapping my disk drive on my linux redhat system. I want to copy
> entire image of my system to new disk drive. I currently have two
> partitions, first is swap and second is system
> and user area. Can someone suggest best way to do this?
> (I have about 3Gig space filled with system and user area)
> Thanks in advance.
> - Shahzad Bhatti
--
Never do Windows again with | Scott M. Nolde
Linux! No streaks, haze or | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
glaze! |
9:25pm up 22:13, 2 users, load average: 1.24, 1.15, 1.07
------------------------------
From: Torsten Evers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AMD/Intel... what's faster on Linux?
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 13:37:18 +0200
Reply-To: Torsten Evers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi !
David Efflandt wrote:
> On Wed, 03 May 2000 22:34:42 +0200, Sebastian Breier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi!
> >I have a discussion here with a friend...
> >I say AMD has the faster processors, he says Intel has the faster
> >processors.
Depends on which processor familiy we are talking about, as david stated
already and of course of which function of the processor we are talking
(integer calculations, memory access, floating point or what ?).
> >Now we know that the Intel support in Linux is much better than AMD's,
> >but...
Hu ? I don't know such a general statement and I wouldn't sign it.
> >Compared on a Linux Machine, what would be better?
> >AMD or Intel processor? (Same clockspeed, and standard RAM [that
> >means, no Rimm for Intel, because that would give the Intel chip an
> >unfair advantage and would be much more expensive]).
> You are both right, or both wrong, depending upon how you look at it. The
> older AMD K6 processors did not have an efficient fpu. For example when I
> upgraded from P200 MMX (P180@66MHz) to Evergreen AMD K6-2/400, fpu
> calculations only improved 15%. A mobile PIII 500 is twice as fast, but
> has faster RAM, video and hd. On the other hand I do not know how the
> Athlons compare with their psudo 200 MHz front side bus.
Oh, it isn't pseudo. It depends on the point of view. When looking at
the measurable speed (e.g. with an oscilloscope), it would be 100 Mhz.
It would be better if AMD would call it 100 Mhz FSB DDR (double data
rate) or if they like it better FSB 2x :-)
When looking at the speed on the processor bus itself ( I mean on the
die itself ), the 200 Mhz are absolutely correct.
But, answering the original question: The AMD Athlon processor is in
most disciplines faster than the Pentium III due to it's faster FPU more
parallel design etc. Compared with the Pentium IIIe (!! note the
difference !!) it is less easy to say which one is quicker. Looking at
office benchmarks the Athlon is faster, looking at game benchmarks, the
PIIIe is faster. But all these differnces are very small compared to the
difference in the price for the two competitors.
Bye,
Torsten
--
Torsten Evers Tel.: ++49-39322-9015
EBH-interdata GbR Fax : ++49-39322-9016
August-Bebel-Str. 6 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D-39590 Tangermuende
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
