Linux-Networking Digest #879, Volume #10 Fri, 16 Apr 99 05:13:43 EDT
Contents:
Samba Help Needed! (Milenko)
Re: Email with Earthlink, Sendmail, exmh, mh, Linux libc5 ("Clifton T. Sharp Jr.")
Re: Samba with kernel 2.2.3 (ellis)
Boot server ("Junky")
Re: NT faster than Linux? (Bob)
Re: NT faster than Linux? (Bob)
Re: NT faster than Linux? (Bob)
lprng no connect perm (Bob)
Re: I'm new to Linux... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
1 server to do both proxy and web serving (Cliff Etzel)
Re: why so many people want to install 2 network card? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How do I find out why my IP aliases don't work ("Curt")
Re: Server setup problem, don't quite know were to start, please help. ("Jan
Johansson")
Re: NT faster than Linux? (Roope Anttinen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Milenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Samba Help Needed!
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:16:02 GMT
Hello im trying to setup Samba to share a /dos directory and a /files
directory of my linux box so i can access these directories under Widnows
systems, ive not yet had any luck i was told to read the samba.conf man
page but it was very detailed and didnt really point me into the right
direction... i have samba installed as its default with Slackware 4.0
Thanks for any suggestions or pointers.
Matt
------------------------------
From: "Clifton T. Sharp Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.mail.sendmail,comp.mail.mh,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Email with Earthlink, Sendmail, exmh, mh, Linux libc5
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:47:40 -0500
Keven R. Pittsinger wrote:
> Here's a sample returned mail:
> [snip]
> ... while talking to pompano.pcola.gulf.net.:
> >>> MAIL From:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <<< 550 Access denied
> 554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Service unavailable
Your address isn't [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Earthlink's mail server
knows it. Use your real address.
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Cliff Sharp | Whatever it is that hits the fan, |
| WA9PDM | it will not be distributed evenly. |
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ellis)
Subject: Re: Samba with kernel 2.2.3
Date: 16 Apr 1999 00:09:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rien Broekstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A couple of weeks ago my box was running linux 2.0.36 (Red Hat 5.2).
>After compiling and booting 2.2.3 however smbmount doesn't work anymore
>
>SMBFS: Need mount version 6
>mount error: invalid argument
>
>smbmount version 2.0.1
>mount-2.8a
>
>Does anyone know what is the problem here?
Did you install all the redhat updates needed to use 2.2 kernels? They're
on ftp.redhat.com.
--
http://www.fnet.net/~ellis/photo/linux.html
------------------------------
From: "Junky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux
Subject: Boot server
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:00:25 +1000
All & Everyone,
I'm currently running a RHL5 system on a 686 and i have an old 486 without a
hard drive. It has a NE2000 netowrk card & i was wondering how to set up the
486 and the 686 machine so the 486 can netowrk boot of the 686.
~ Mikey
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.samba,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: NT faster than Linux?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 02:49:17 -0400
==============792A62AB604B58D17BA41FB8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MJ Ray wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
> Screwy kernel configuration, perhaps?
>
> I don't know, but their Apache configuration looks like it will
> impose a fairly low limit on number of clients in their test.
I read a test in a major mag at least six months ago, testing NT,
Sun, various unices, and linux servers. One of the things that seemed
rigged about the test was the cut-off point for number of users.
It seemed low, as if that wonderful NT line on the graph would
only rise above all others until 64 users. The test trashed linux
by only using kernel 1. Then they lied and said linux wasn't ready
for 64-bit, which made NT 64-bit vaporware sound closer to
realization. Mistakes like that have to be intentional.
One test that should occur is to pass out the uniform hardware to
teams representing each OS, and give them six hours to get
ready for testing. Where did they find that pre-historic kernel?
It didn't come with an off-the-shelf linux server from a linux
company, comparable to letting Sun and MS and SGI prepare
their own boxes. At least the current rigged situation let a 2.2.2
kernel in.
-Bob
-- 7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance -- 800 same --
Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
7.5 cents still too high? FREE LD
==============792A62AB604B58D17BA41FB8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
MJ Ray wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>David Damerell wrote:
<br>Screwy kernel configuration, perhaps?
<p>I don't know, but their Apache configuration looks like it will
<br>impose a fairly low limit on number of clients in their test.</blockquote>
I read a test in a major mag at least six months ago, testing NT,
<br>Sun, various unices, and linux servers. One of the things that seemed
<br>rigged about the test was the cut-off point for number of users.
<br>It seemed low, as if that wonderful NT line on the graph would
<br>only rise above all others until 64 users. The test trashed linux
<br>by only using kernel 1. Then they lied and said linux wasn't ready
<br>for 64-bit, which made NT 64-bit vaporware sound closer to
<br>realization. Mistakes like that have to be intentional.
<p>One test that should occur is to pass out the uniform hardware to
<br>teams representing each OS, and give them six hours to get
<br>ready for testing. Where did they find that pre-historic kernel?
<br>It didn't come with an off-the-shelf linux server from a linux
<br>company, comparable to letting Sun and MS and SGI prepare
<br>their own boxes. At least the current rigged situation let a 2.2.2
<br>kernel in.
<p>-Bob
<br>
<p>-- <a href="http://LD.net/7.5/palcom">7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance</a>
-- 800 same --
<p>Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
<p>7.5 cents still too high? <a href="http://www.broadpoint.com/national.htm">FREE
LD</a>
<br> </html>
==============792A62AB604B58D17BA41FB8==
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.samba,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: NT faster than Linux?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 02:51:54 -0400
==============6E139000ED670015830679A3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Taylor wrote:
> Notice they never bothered to get all the RAM to work. Only 980MB or so,
> so the NT is using over 4X the memory. Fair Test? Doubtful..
> I do believe that LInux will support more than that. But listen to what
> they say:
>
> "The Linux kernel limited itself to use only 960 MB of RAM"
>
> Sound like a pile of **** to me.
>
> Let them Test an EQUIVALENT system, hardware to hardware!!!!!!
I think they at least should have plugged the linux machine in to the
electrical receptacle. "limited itself" says they're incompetent or
deliberate.
-Bob
-- 7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance -- 800 same --
Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
7.5 cents still too high? FREE LD
==============6E139000ED670015830679A3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Taylor wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> Notice they never bothered to get all the RAM
to work. Only 980MB or so,
<br> so the NT is using over 4X the memory. Fair Test? Doubtful..
<br> I do believe that LInux will support more than that. But listen
to what
<br> they say:
<p>"The Linux kernel limited itself to use only 960 MB of RAM"
<p> Sound like a pile of **** to me.
<p> Let them Test an EQUIVALENT system, hardware to hardware!!!!!!</blockquote>
I think they at least should have plugged the linux machine in to the
<br>electrical receptacle. "limited itself" says they're incompetent or
<br>deliberate.
<p>-Bob
<p>-- <a href="http://LD.net/7.5/palcom">7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance</a>
-- 800 same --
<p>Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
<p>7.5 cents still too high? <a href="http://www.broadpoint.com/national.htm">FREE
LD</a>
<br> </html>
==============6E139000ED670015830679A3==
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.samba,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: NT faster than Linux?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 02:56:43 -0400
==============5B2073960912D02CEBAC2F61
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jamie wrote:
> This is not really a comparision from which any useful conclusions can
> be drawn. I wish they had started with a single processor x86 and then
> worked up.
That was one way a test six months ago was rigged. Linux did amazingly
well for running only one processor and kernel 1, while all others had
two processors running.
-Bob
-- 7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance -- 800 same --
Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
7.5 cents still too high? FREE LD
==============5B2073960912D02CEBAC2F61
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Jamie wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>This is not really a comparision from which any useful
conclusions can
<br>be drawn. I wish they had started with a single processor x86
and then
<br>worked up.</blockquote>
That was one way a test six months ago was rigged. Linux did amazingly
<br>well for running only one processor and kernel 1, while all others
had
<br>two processors running.
<p>-Bob
<br>
<br>
<p>-- <a href="http://LD.net/7.5/palcom">7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance</a>
-- 800 same --
<p>Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
<p>7.5 cents still too high? <a href="http://www.broadpoint.com/national.htm">FREE
LD</a>
<br> </html>
==============5B2073960912D02CEBAC2F61==
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: lprng no connect perm
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:02:01 -0400
==============366A5E57FAD53ED010B1D351
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
debian 2.2
I think I need to edit a file in /etc, but which one?
lpq -a
no connect permissions
lpr -D5 file
no connect permissions
I edited /etc/hosts.allow. Unless I need to re-boot or
re-start something, I think that didn't do anything.
What other files could be causing that?
-Bob
-- 7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance -- 800 same --
Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
7.5 cents still too high? FREE LD
==============366A5E57FAD53ED010B1D351
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
debian 2.2
<p>I think I need to edit a file in /etc, but which one?
<br>
<p>lpq -a
<p> no connect permissions
<br>
<p>lpr -D5 file
<p> no connect permissions
<br>
<p>I edited /etc/hosts.allow. Unless I need to re-boot or
<br>re-start something, I think that didn't do anything.
<p>What other files could be causing that?
<p>-Bob
<br>
<br>
<p>-- <a href="http://LD.net/7.5/palcom">7.5 cent fixed-rate long-distance</a>
-- 800 same --
<p>Great intra-state. Low prepaid, intntl, 14.95 ISP
<p>7.5 cents still too high? <a href="http://www.broadpoint.com/national.htm">FREE
LD</a>
<br> </html>
==============366A5E57FAD53ED010B1D351==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I'm new to Linux...
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 20:50:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick McCall) wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:03:48 +1200, "Troy Turner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I'm running a small network with 3 486 win95 machines and 1 486 RedHat 5.1
> >linux machine,
> >
> >I can see all the linux shares on my win95 machines,
> >
> >But I don't know how to access any win95 shares on my linux machine.
> >
> >Can some please sent my the commands to use
> >
> >
> >eMail my at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> How did you set up the shares in Linux, and then set up Windows to see
> them? I've got a thread a few lines below this one describing an
> issue I am having. I have an NT machine and a Linux box. I've only
> done networking with Microsoft-based and Netware machines.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions
>
> Patrick
>
These are two different problems.
1) access Linux drives from a Windows machine: you need the samba package
http://samba.anu.edu.au/
I have a quick setup page for Samba on a Linux Slackware 2.0.29 kernel at
http://homepages.infoseek.com/~ko4bb/samba-setup.html
2) access Windows drives from a Linux machine: you need the smbfs package
http://www.kki.org/linux-lan/
These have nothing in common except that each implement the SMB protocol
needed to talk to a Windows machine.
Good luck
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Cliff Etzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 1 server to do both proxy and web serving
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:22:14 -0700
here is my problem: I am running 24x7 ADSL via a Cisco 675 ADSL Router.
I have 2 NIC cards ion my server, 1 with the static IP address my
ISP gave me, the other for the LAN to run off of.
I have compiled kernel 2.2.5 for IP masq (Should I have?)
The best I can do at this point is running Tinyproxy 1.0-1 which allows
me a pathecially slow 1.6k/sec from my workstation, but my server can
access at over 30k/sec.
The LAN is connected via an Asante' 5 port hub, while the ADSL is
connected directly to the server on a 3com 3C9xx PCI card.
I am stumped as to what to try next - I can ping my servers address no
prob.
If this is related to MTU's, how to I gop about increasing the amount
for better performance?
What can I do to get the throughput I need to my workstation.
It is the only machine attached to the server, but is my only connection
to the net, and I am at a stand still at this point.
TIA for anyhelp
Cliff Etzel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: why so many people want to install 2 network card?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:49:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dunno the details of SMP implementation, but there's no real reason why
> each thread shoudn't be on a different processor regardless of the
> number of network cards.
I was under the impression that SMP wasn't symmetric on the thread level but
rather on the assembly level (or, more properly, the machine code level) --
that switching between processors occurred between every machine code
instruction. This requires a rewrite of most compilers (you don't want to
write the result of a computation into a register and then try to read from
it one instruction later under SMP, because the wrong processor will be in
charge -- sticking a noop in between will actually *increase* performance of
compiled code, and determining at compile-time where the noops should go is
an algorithmically challenging task, to say the least! :). Since most
compilers haven't been rewritten to account for this aspect of SMP [with the
exception of the --proprietary-- compiler Intel produced to "demo" the
performance of their dual-processor configuration], I generally consider the
whole thing to be bunk and over-hyped, except for in rare circumstances where
your code just *happens* to be already symmetric (certain types of
applications, such as modeling or rendering programs, may have this feature).
Handling interrupts from a network device is definitely not symmetric.
> Where extra cards come in REAL handy is when you have a bandwidth-limited
> system. PCI has a traffic limit of about 1Gb/s, and even a modest
> 200MHz CPU can keep ahead of quite a few 10baseT ports without strain. Even a
> 100baseTX card isn't likely to gag out a moderately fast CPU, and adding
> the extra interrupts will actually help with the scheduling.
Really? I can sort-of see why that might be the case (often the scheduler
won't have to waste cycles trying to "decide", since the interrupts do their
own deciding :). That's interesting..
I'd assumed multiple cards wouldn't give much of a performance boost (SMP or
not) for homogeneous traffic, but you raise a good point. I think I may go
play with a spare machine for a while... :)
-Bill Clark
> --
> He either fears his fate too much, or his deserts are small,
> That puts it not unto the touch to win or lose it all.
>
> D. C. & M. V. Sessions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How do I find out why my IP aliases don't work
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:47:58 -0500
You need to add a route to your aliased host.
/sbin/route add -host [ip2] dev eth0:0
Jure Simsic wrote in message <7f5u71$qn6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I'm trying to set up a firewall. We have our private network
(192.168.87.0).
>Our ISP assigned us default IP 193.138.44.23 (net 193.138.44.16) and the
router
>is on 193.138.44.17. And they said that the net
193.138.44.64/255.255.255.240
>will be routed to 193.138.44.23. So I'm trying to test this and I've set
some
>aliases from 193.138.44.64 net to eth0.
>
>I can get out fine through def gw and from outside back as well to default
ip
>(.23), but i can't reach any of the aliases.
>traceroute just keeps bouncing back from the router.
>
>I've tried to make an alias on another IP from the same net as default IP
and
>got response from it. It seems to me as if ..64 net ips isn't routed to ip
>.23. How can I be sure who's doing it wrong?
>
>Btw, the procedure went briefly like:
>ifconfig eth0 [ip] netm [nm] bcast [bc]
>ifconfig eth0:0 [ip2]
>route add -net ..16 #(original IP net)
>route add default gw ..17
>route add -net ..64 netmask ..240 dev eth0:0 #the should-be routed net
>
>and my netstat -r says
>
>Kernel IP routing table
>Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
>193.138.44.65 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
eth0
>193.138.44.16 * 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0
eth0
>193.138.44.64 * 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0
eth0
>192.168.87.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
eth1
>default gw 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
eth0
>
>
>Jure
>p.s. Please repy to mail as well
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Server setup problem, don't quite know were to start, please help.
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:38:46 +0200
Install Wingate, do a portmapping of port 80, but doing it the other way
around would be so much easier.
------------------------------
From: Roope Anttinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.samba,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: NT faster than Linux?
Date: 16 Apr 1999 08:46:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.networking Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look at http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
> Notice they never bothered to get all the RAM to work. Only 980MB or so,
> so the NT is using over 4X the memory. Fair Test? Doubtful..
Actually NT did use 1GB so if they have read the stuff under
linux/Documentation they would have embarassed NT (they were trying to do
exactly the opposite)
> I do believe that LInux will support more than that. But listen to what
> they say:
> "The Linux kernel limited itself to use only 960 MB of RAM"
Yup and the NT's limit to 1GB they passed quite quicly without any pointing
comments.
> Sound like a pile of **** to me.
They were actually quite good doing what they wanted to do - crippling the
Linux installation so that non techical people can't notice it: Compiling
samba and apache again without optimizations (-O4 has no effect on the gcc
version they used), used widelinks=no parameter that takes samba's
perfomance down dramatically. Didn't start any spare servers with apache and
actually the parameters they've set to the samba and apache made it seem
like they were starting them on demand with inetd (HUUUGE mistake for
perfomance issues). And probably they didn't know (or were wery aware of the
situation) how to make Linux to use all available NIC's so NT had 4xmore
bandwidth to use.
Roope
--
MicroSoft? is that some kind of a toilet paper?
PS: Look for address here, not from headers. And remove NOSPAM's
___________________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+358 9 812 7567 / +358 500 445 565 / +358 49 445 565
http://myy.helia.fi/~anttiner/index.html
===========================================================================
Helsinki Business Polytechnic - Institute of information technology
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
