Linux-Networking Digest #409, Volume #10 Sun, 7 Mar 99 06:13:49 EST
Contents:
Re: Ping & DHCPD yes, telnet, http, no, HELP!!! (Wade Olsen)
Re: Apache CGI load question ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: slakware 3.6 with ASUS P2B DS (adaptec 2940) and matrox millennium (Vladymyr
Iljyc Lenin)
network equipment question, please help ("Azzura")
Questions about NFS server and network performance issues with Linux - long ("Magnus
Ericson")
HELP! pppd/chat stopped working all of a sudden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ethernet for IBM ps/2 386 machine (Anonymous)
can't ping Windows 95 from Linux (Anonymous)
Re: Performance problem Win95 <-> Linux (Tobias Reckhard (jester))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wade Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ping & DHCPD yes, telnet, http, no, HELP!!!
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 21:51:27 -0800
root wrote:
> Wade Olsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : I've been trying to telnet to my linux box from a W98 machine for about
> : a month with no luck. They can ping each other just fine. When I try to
> : telnet tcpdump shows the packets arriving at the linux box but they seem
> : to be silently dicarded. Eventually the telnet times out. Someone
> : suggested it might be my /etc/resolv.conf. It looks like:
>
> - maybe /etc/inetd.conf doesn't allow telnet, or it basically allows telnet,
> but /etc/hosts.allow resp. /etc/hosts.deny block telnet from that special peer
> - any packet filtering rules enabled (ipfwadm; ipchains)?
>
> bye, juergen.
While logged in on the linux console I can telnet to gate (the name of the linxu
box) and to localhost so it seems inetd is configured correctly. My
/etc/hosts.allow looks like:
ALL : ALL
And if I "tcpdmatch in.telnetd snort" to see if snort (the W98 machine) would
be allowed access to telnet, it says access would be granted.
I'm have Redhat 5.1 so I have only ipfwadm. I have no rules set for input, output,
forwarding or accounting. The default policy for the first three is "accept".
As an additional curiosity, I'm running dhcpd on the linux box and that works for
any of the windows machines I plug into the lan. I.e. they each get dyamic IP
addresses from the linux box. Also, other services work on the locally on the
linux hosts but not on the LAN. For example the appache web server and sendmail
both are working from the linux box but not from the LAN.
Is there a pattern here? Broadcast packets are OK; TCP packed are blocked some
how? I don't know enough about network protocols to determine this.
Any other ideas?
Wade
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apache CGI load question
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 02:56:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams) wrote:
> I have a couple huge sites that run endless amounts of CGI all day long. I
> constantly get:
First off, CGI is an evil that should be purged from the earth as quickly as
possible. I highly recommend PHP (http://www.php.net) or modPERL (try CPAN),
which are both non-forking (apache module) interpreters that can do everything
CGI can, but faster and better in every way.
> [Sat Mar 6 17:08:47 1999] [error] [client 24.216.92.184] (11)Try again:
> couldn't spawn child process: /apache133/web/site.com/perlprogram.cgi
That's because you're running up against the process limit (maxproc).
Essentially, the kernel is running out of space in it's process tables to keep
track of all your CGI's.
> Is there anything at all I can do to allow more damn CGI to run?
Yes. You can recompile the kernel with MAXPROC set to some higher value.
This will *temporarily* fix the problem, until you hit the new limit. Again,
I highly suggest using some internal apache module rather than CGI, but if
you absolutely positively _must_ have CGI, make sure that the "MaxClients"
line in your apache config is at *most* half the number of MAXPROC (that way
you should never see the "couldn't spawn child process" error, though this
isn't an actual solution, as rather than erroring your box will simply refuse
additional connections).
> Whats with the limit anyway?
The kernel needs to know ahead of time what the maximum number of processes
will be, so that it can size its process tables correctly. If no such limit
were set, the kernel would have to resize its tables on a regular basis,
which is not exactly a feasible solution.
> I just want to run an unlimited number of nobody CGI processes.
> How can I do that?
You can't. For better or worse (probably better :), that's not how operating
systems work, and it's especially not how Linux works.
Again, anything you can do using CGI can be done better, faster, and more
scalably with an internal Apache module. Personally, I recommend PHP (version
3.0.6 is the latest release, I believe, and contains step-by-step instructions
for building with Apache 1.3.x), which you can download for free from
http://www.php.net/.
> Thanks
HTH, Bill Clark
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Vladymyr Iljyc Lenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: slakware 3.6 with ASUS P2B DS (adaptec 2940) and matrox millennium
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 08:55:29 +0100
Gilles Chrzaszcz wrote:
> I have some problems to make a kernel on my computer and to config XFree86.
>
> I have a ASUS P2B Ds motherboard and two scsi disk, a scsi cdrom (Toshiba
> XM-6201TA), a scsi CDRW (Yamaha CRW 4260), an ensoniq PCI sound card, an
> ethernet card (3Com 509b) and a ViewSonic G790 monitor.
>
> When i use the kernel aic7890.s, my computer work correctly but if i config
> the kernel to use my ethernet card i do not obtain a kernel that work
> correctly. This new kernel does not recognise my scsi drivers.
Do you configure support for yours SCSI host adapter in your new kernel?
> Plus, I can not create a XF86Config file that work with my computer
what type is yours graphic card?
--
= lenin =
proste lenin
------------------------------
From: "Azzura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: network equipment question, please help
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 23:54:24 -0800
Hi,
I plan to get DSL installed and to sheare the costs with my roomates by
using a unix box and ip-masquarate (?) to distribute it to our little home
network. the only think i have to far is network cable in the walls, nothing
else.
I need suggestions for a a network card for my unix box and a cheap but good
hub.
I saw this 100 network card for about $30 today and a hub 10 and 100 speed
for around $90.
Any thought and suggestions on where to get good and relatively cheap
network material ?
I heard from friends to only get 3com cards and hubs but my budget wouyld
really like to avoid it.
Remember, we are talking about a little in house network...
Thanks and please e-mail me suggestions.
juliette
------------------------------
From: "Magnus Ericson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Questions about NFS server and network performance issues with Linux - long
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 09:01:27 +0100
Hello all Linux experts!
I run a small company (on part time basis) from my house with some friends
of mine. Therefore I have six PCs that is used both for development work
(programming and some multimedia design) as well as by my family/friends
(games, word processing etc).
The machines are a dual P2-300, a dual P200MMX, a P2-450, a P-90 and two 486
boxes (120Mhz & 66 MHz). On the three best machines I run either Linux,
Win/NT or Win98 depending on what I am doing at the moment. One the 486-66
and the P90 I run DOS and Windows95 (they are mainly used for Office
related tasks and to play old DOS-games that run to fast on newer machines
:-)). The 120MHz 486 is used to run Linux (Slackware) with Samba and act as
an NT-domain controler, printer server and file server for the users home
accounts. I use ordinary 10Mbs Ethernet with a simple hub.
This setup works reliably but checking in and out large files (especially
multimedia stuff) from the server is very slow. If this is due to the weak
CPU or due to 10Mbs Ethernet (or both) I dont know. I would also like to use
my server for installing programs that later can be used on all machines -
this also work to slowly today.
Now I am considering to improve the situation by switching to fast Ethernet
(100Mbs) and use one of my faster machines as server. The 3 new machines
already have boards that can handle fast Ethernet. A friend of mine has
promised me a good price of an old Adaptec dual channel ultra SCSI-board
that I am considering to buy for the server machine along with two of four
fast SCSI-drives. I have a limited investment budget and therefore need some
advice about how to get the most "bang for the buck"...
My questions are:
1. Is it worthwhile to switch to fast Ethernet when I have no more than six
machines (only 3 of them are really using the network heavily)? What is the
actual performance gain (compared to the 10x theoretical gain) compared to
my old network?
2. In what cases (if any) would it be worthwhile to buy a switch for my new
network instead of a hub?
3. With this small network, will I see a large performance gain from the
server if I buy the SCSI-board and some 7200-10000 rpm disks compared to
using good ATA-disks or is this more of an issue if when setting up a server
for a larger network with many machines (and maybe more than one network
board in the server)?
4. How powerful a machine is needed (when using Linux) to drive a 100Mbit
network card and a single or dual channel ultra SCSI-card on a small network
(5 other machines)? Ideally I would like to use my old P90 with 32mb RAM for
the task since this machine is not used a lot today and would not be missed
if made into a dedicated server but the question is if it is powerfull
enough? My more powerful machines are all used to run Windows now and then
(mostly for playing network games like Diablo :-)) and are therefore not
good candidates to act as dedicated servers. I would like to always have the
server on line no matter what activities that are going on with the other
machines!
5. Are there any configuration issues that one shall consider to get the
most out of a Linux box as a dedicated samba and file server?
All suggestions are appreciated!
/Magnus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: HELP! pppd/chat stopped working all of a sudden
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 08:22:41 GMT
I used to have no problems connecting to my ISP with the ppp-on script, but
now my modem refuses to dial. The funny thing is that it works fine with
minicom/kermit etc...the following is from /var/log/messages :
Mar 7 18:53:26 sporty pppd[899]: pppd 2.3.3 started by root, uid 0
Mar 7 18:53:27 sporty chat[900]: timeout set to 3 seconds
Mar 7 18:53:27 sporty chat[900]: abort on (\nBUSY\r)
Mar 7 18:53:27 sporty chat[900]: abort on (\nNO ANSWER\r)
Mar 7 18:53:27 sporty chat[900]: abort on (\nRINGING\r\n\r\nRINGING\r)
Mar 7 18:53:27 sporty chat[900]: send (rAT^M)
Mar 7 18:53:27 sporty chat[900]: expect (OK)
Mar 7 18:53:30 sporty chat[900]: alarm
Mar 7 18:53:30 sporty pppd[899]: Connect script failed
Mar 7 18:53:30 sporty chat[900]: Failed
what does the 'alarm' mean?
TIA
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ethernet for IBM ps/2 386 machine
Date: 6 Mar 1999 18:31:47 GMT
Try a local computer show. I was lucky enough to find a MCA 3COM etherlink
III at one. Good luck!
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: can't ping Windows 95 from Linux
Date: 6 Mar 1999 18:31:34 GMT
Hi,
I have two machines - one is running Win95. Another can dual boot to
Windows 95 or Linux. Both are connected with a cross cable.
The problem is that I can ping each other while running both in Windows 95
but can't ping while one boot up in Linux and another in Win95.
Both has set the IP already.
IP: 192.168.1.1 IP: 192.168.1.2
Subnet: 255.255.255.0 for both
Would you give me advice how to solve ths?
Regards,
Rory Cham
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tobias Reckhard (jester))
Subject: Re: Performance problem Win95 <-> Linux
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 10:01:25 GMT
On Fri, 5 Mar 1999 01:24:44 +0100, Erwann ABALEA
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problems are performance ones. When I transfer a file from Linux to
>Win95, for a 1.4MB file, I've got a 275KB/s rate... The same file, but the
>other way, I can harder get more than 3KB/s (yes, three!!)...
>
>I prefer to blame Windows for this, so I searched at the driver
>configuration, I tried to explicitely set the full-duplex to off, setting
>the TCP/IP the default protocol, but nothing can get me a faster rate....
>
>Anyone got an idea? Even a single pointer to a doc?
I got a big boost in speed by adjusting the Ethernet NIC settings in
Win95. I changed the 'burst length' and the 'receive buffers' of my
DEC21041-based PCI card and that increased throughput six-fold.
Tobias / jester
------------------------------
** 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.networking) 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-Networking Digest
******************************
