Linux-Networking Digest #461, Volume #11 Wed, 9 Jun 99 03:14:17 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is linux perfomance bad compared to windows? (Sergio de Sousa)
Re: Linux and POP servers (Alexei Kakhno)
Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization (Drake Christensen)
Re: Setting up a modem that doesn't work ("George Georgakis")
Re: Samba and kernel 2.2.9 (Rob Clark)
Re: 3C509B NIC Problem...try this .... ("Chitla Sudhir")
Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization (Wayne Kovsky)
I'm Sooooo Close ("Leroy Banack")
Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization......forgot something ("Dave")
MultiCasting (Tom Tang)
Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization (Drake Christensen)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (Wolfgang Schneider)
Re: I'm Sooooo Close ("William B. Cattell")
I have a network/computer problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sergio de Sousa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is linux perfomance bad compared to windows?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:31:16 -0400
Jan Johansson wrote:
>
> >Those are very expensive benchmarks to run. They're usually produced by
> >a large company (Oracle, Informix, MS, HP, SUN...) with an axe to grind.
> >That axe isn't likely to be showing that Linux is wonderful -- it
> >undercuts most of those guys own platforms. If anyone were going to do
> >it it would probably be Oracle but they're usually interested in showing
> >very high end numbers. On the other hand embarassing MS is a favored
> >sport of theirs so...
>
> [note: devils advocate post following]
>
> My point exactly, and why should we take a platform seriously, when even the
> makers of the software we would like to run on it arent interested in
> benchmarking in (or so it seems)? Sorry to be the "devils advocate" here.
> But i personally think the "sweetbread" days of linux is over, well not over
> really.. But now the big companies are starting to scrutinise (sp?) the
> platform much more closely, and realizing that there really is no >point in
>>-- snip..
No need to benchmark Linux (and spend a lot of $$ doing so) when M$
itself considers it a threat and a serious competitor in the server
market ;) _specially_ against NT.
See the Halloween Memoranda (http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html)
if in doubt...
--
====================================
Sergio de Sousa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexei Kakhno)
Subject: Re: Linux and POP servers
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:30:00 GMT
On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:41:57 +0200, Mohamad SALEH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello,
>We have an NT domain with 25 machines. We have at least 15 users and we
>want that each
>user could send and receive e-mail with a proper e-mail. Now, we have
>some POP e-mails.
>A solution with an NT Server, and an EXCHANGE Server along with one POP
>e-mail exists
>but I would prefer a Linux solution.
>Does such a solution exist? What is the cost?
>Thanks in advance
>
Edit /etc/inetd.conf
find # pop ... and uncomment it. Stop inetd. Start inetd.
Check an account:
Type
telnet host.domain.xxx 110 # Port number for POP is 110
Type
user your_login
pass your_password
list # see commands.
quit
Alexei
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drake Christensen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 06:29:11 GMT
It just occurred to me that I should have included the relevant lines
from my conf.modules file:
alias eth0 ne
alias eth1 ne
options eth0 io=0x280 irq=10
options eth1 io=0x300 irq=15
As I said before, when I add -o to the options line then neither card is
recognized at boot-up.
I just tried "modprobe eth0" and "modprobe eth1". In both cases, it
returned with no message. When I ran ifconfig it still sees only eth0.
It does not see eth1.
Drake
In article <7jl0a1$c4t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> okay PnP is off...so u should know your I/O for each card... place that in
> the options in the conf.modules file.. ie:
>
> eth0 ne
> options io=0xXXX
> eth1 ne
> options io=0xXXX
>
> then do a "modprobe eth0" and a "modprobe eth1"..then ifconfig to make sure
> they are recognized.... then "ifconfig eth0 up <ipaddress>" etc etc... i've
> heard that having the SAME exact card can be a prob in linux 5.2.
>
> -dave
>
>
> Drake Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:MPG.11c760268660d7fd9896f6@news...
> > I'm trying to set up a 486/33 as a firewall using RedHat 5.2.
> >
> > I have two SOHOware ND5320 NICs, and used the DOS disk to turn off PnP.
> > In conf.modules, I've swapped the eth0 and eth1 options and verified that
> > both work as eth0.
> >
> > I've read the HOWTOs. I don't see this error message mentioned once. If
> > someone knows of a HOWTO or FAQ that discusses this, please point me to
> > it.
> >
> > I've searched dejanews. I saw one post that suggested adding "-o" to the
> > options lines in conf.modules in order to differentiate the adapters.
> > When I tried that, neither adapter was recognized on boot-up.
> >
> > ifconfig sees eth0 but not eth1. When I try to force the values for eth1
> > it complains that the interface is unknown.
> >
> > I'm sure I'm overlooking something simple. Anyone have any ideas?
> >
> > Drake Christensen
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "George Georgakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Setting up a modem that doesn't work
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:45:09 GMT
Get a modem which works.
George
===========================================================================
I never reply by email as a) I don't give out my real email address freely,
and b) it stops other NG users from reading the solutions to problems
If necessary, however, I can be contacted thru geegs (a) linuxstart DOT com
==========================================================================
Mads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<7jki11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> How do i set up a modem in Linux that doesn't work?
>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Samba and kernel 2.2.9
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Clark)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:39:27 GMT
In article <7jjvro$9v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Having upgraded to kernel 2.2.9 (on Redhat 5.2), I discovered to my
>dismay that smbmount no longer works, returning the whacky messages
>"Need mount version 6". I tried compiling later versions, as well as
>grabbing rpms, but the problem did not go away, but only worsened: now
>smbclient segfaults
>What to do?
This is a FAQ: you need to recompile Samba with '--with-smbmount'
The instructions are in the top-level README, IIRC.
Good luck,
Rob Clark, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.o2.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html
------------------------------
From: "Chitla Sudhir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 3C509B NIC Problem...try this ....
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:16:15 +0530
Hi guys,
BTW I'm a newbie to Linux. I have a 3C905B card n is detcted by
Redhat 5.2 perfectly. But it's not at all connecting to the network. I can't
understand abt. "disabling PnP". Can any one explain abt. tha same pl.
thanks,
-chitla.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Perhaps not quite _perfectly_
>I have two linux boxes with identical 3c509b TP ISA cards
>and the same vanilla (RH 4.2) kernel;
>one (a 486) detects the NIC just fine and loads the 3c509 drivers.
>
>On the other i've done the usual stuff, disabling PnP, using an
>unused irq and i/o address and changing the bios
>irq setting to "Legacy ISA". Windows 95 networking
>works OK, but the NIC is not detected in linux.
>I'd guess it's a BIOS difference.
>
>So if I'd stopped at the first machine, I'd be in the
>"works _perfectly_" camp. Anyone seen this and found a
>solution ?
>
>Jan Johansson wrote:
>>
>> >Well, I have done my homework! (long time ago)
>> >It did not work.
>> >So, for everybody: stay away from the 5c509B.
>> >You may be lucky, though.
>>
>> the 509B is one of the few cards that works _perfectly_ in linux. After
you
>> disabled the PnP on the card, what resources did you assign to it, and
most
>> importantly: Did you remember to tell your BIOS that that IRQ was now in
use
>> by a "Legacy device"? No? I didnt think so.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 00:48:37 -0600
From: Wayne Kovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization
Drake Christensen wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a 486/33 as a firewall using RedHat 5.2.
>
> I have two SOHOware ND5320 NICs, and used the DOS disk to turn off PnP.
> In conf.modules, I've swapped the eth0 and eth1 options and verified that
> both work as eth0.
[snip]
Drake, the RedHat 5.2 manual (pages 303-304), says that "you can use two
ethernet cards in one machine". It then goes on to say that "if any two
ethernet cards use the same driver (e.g., two 3c509s or a 3c595 and a
3c905), you will need to compile a custom kernel with the ethernet
driver built-in. In that case, you can use the "classic" LILO boot:
parameters of the
form:
ether=irq,base.addr,interface"
(I believe you do not need to specify both cards, only the second one,
but I have not done this myself so you may have to experiment.)
Since you are using two identical NICs, I believe this text applies to
your situation.
--
Wayne Kovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colorado Software Summit (A Java Programming Conference)
http://www.SoftwareSummit.com
------------------------------
From: "Leroy Banack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I'm Sooooo Close
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 05:54:42 GMT
Hello,
I've decided to get back into UNIX after years of using PC/MACs. I use to
use (and abuse) AIX.
>From spare parts I have built a Pentium 200 Linux box and have successfully
setup Linux red hat version 5.2 from a CD-ROM.
Everything is working except my network ... I've spend hours in /usr/doc;
however, I'm stuck and need a little help.
Background:
I have a cable modem with an ethernet hub. I have three static IP
addresses: One for a Wintel PC, one for an iMac, and one for my Linux box.
Both the Mac and PC are working fine. Information I received from my ISP
(rogers@home) include:
IP Address, Subnet Mask, Gateway/Router, Computer Name, DNS/Name Servers
and Domain.
I used this info during the Linux installation procedure.
I have 3Com Etherlink III (3x509B).
During my boot sequence I get this message:
eth0:3c509 at 0c300 tag 1 10 baseT port, address 00 0a 24 0d 68 69 IRQ 10.
---> I assume this means linux has identified my network card
---> and has assigned it to device eth0. (These settings
---> jive with the DOS config program - Plug-in-Pray disabled)
The next two lines are the killers:
SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument
SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable
Not good, no? Hardware or network setting problem? I can't figure it out.
I'm unsure what command is causing these messages (route?, ifconfig?) and I
don't know where these commands are run from.
My settings in /usr/sysconfig/network and
/usr/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifconf-eth0 seem to be OK.
pinging a numeric IP address results in :
ping: sendto: Network is unreachable
ping wrote 199.135.13.15 64 chars, ret=-1 (IP address fake in example)
Free beer to the person who can help. Honest, well, if you live in
Vancouver we'll head over to the Jolly Taxpayer for a beer or two :)
TIA
=====================================================
Leroy Banack email: banack<--nospam-->@home.com
remove <--nospam--> to email me
1374 Sunnyside Drive, North Vancouver, B.C. V7R 1B1
phone: (604) 983-3385 cell: (604) 841-2400
------------------------------
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization......forgot something
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:08:41 -0400
make sure in your conf.modules it's
"alias eth0 ne" etc etc... i forgot to put the alias =]
Drake Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MPG.11c760268660d7fd9896f6@news...
> I'm trying to set up a 486/33 as a firewall using RedHat 5.2.
>
> I have two SOHOware ND5320 NICs, and used the DOS disk to turn off PnP.
> In conf.modules, I've swapped the eth0 and eth1 options and verified that
> both work as eth0.
>
> I've read the HOWTOs. I don't see this error message mentioned once. If
> someone knows of a HOWTO or FAQ that discusses this, please point me to
> it.
>
> I've searched dejanews. I saw one post that suggested adding "-o" to the
> options lines in conf.modules in order to differentiate the adapters.
> When I tried that, neither adapter was recognized on boot-up.
>
> ifconfig sees eth0 but not eth1. When I try to force the values for eth1
> it complains that the interface is unknown.
>
> I'm sure I'm overlooking something simple. Anyone have any ideas?
>
> Drake Christensen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Tang)
Subject: MultiCasting
Date: 9 Jun 1999 06:55:03 GMT
Hello All :
Does anybody have some IPV4 multicasting sample code ?
Can't seem to get it to work ...
--
Tom Tang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~tangj
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drake Christensen)
Subject: Re: Delaying eth1 Initialization
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 06:20:48 GMT
In article <7jknre$l3s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> [Note follow-up newsgroup]
>
> In article <MPG.11c760268660d7fd9896f6@news>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drake Christensen) writes:
> > I'm trying to set up a 486/33 as a firewall using RedHat 5.2.
> >
> > I have two SOHOware ND5320 NICs, and used the DOS disk to turn off PnP.
> > In conf.modules, I've swapped the eth0 and eth1 options and verified that
> > both work as eth0.
> >
> > I've read the HOWTOs. I don't see this error message mentioned once. If
> > someone knows of a HOWTO or FAQ that discusses this, please point me to
> > it.
> (edit)
>
> Here are two pages that address this issue:
>
> http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/Ethernet-HOWTO-3.html#ss3.2
>
> http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/misc/multicard.html
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
Thanks. I've seen both of those HOWTOs.
It just occurred to me that I should have included the relevant lines
from my conf.modules file:
alias eth0 ne
alias eth1 ne
options eth0 io=0x280 irq=10
options eth1 io=0x300 irq=15
As I said before, when I add -o to the options line then neither card is
recognized at boot-up.
Drake
------------------------------
From: Wolfgang Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:55:34 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> W Canedigh wrote:
>
> > Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > >
> > > John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Jon-o Addleman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Once upon a Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:43:13 +0200, "Jan Johansson"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Correct. Not a bug, that was the way MS wanted it.. and it makes sense to me
> > > > > >atleast.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Why would they want it to be impossible to save your password
> > > > > unless a particular protocol was in place? It makes llittle sense to
> > > > > me... the dial up networking has nothing to do with the network
> > > > > protocol that it uses. Please explain this to me!
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps to encourage you to use their proprietary protocol
> > > > instead of other, more open protocols?
> > >
> > > microsoft wants you to run linux. really!
> > >
> > > --
> > > johan kullstam
> >
> > Hey ... they sold me a copy! In fact, RH 5.2 was so nice I tried Cladera
> > OpenLinux 2.2 just to see what else was possible! Those guys in Redmond
> > are masterful marketers! Ah, Billy m'boy ... you've done it again!
>
> If you really want to see what's possible, try SuSE.
>
> Rick
Or go to go to linuxcentral.com and try Mandrake 6.0 and Debian and .....
At $1.95 a copy just try all of them.
Wolf
*
------------------------------
From: "William B. Cattell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I'm Sooooo Close
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 06:05:36 GMT
Leroy Banack wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've decided to get back into UNIX after years of using PC/MACs. I use to
> use (and abuse) AIX.
>
> From spare parts I have built a Pentium 200 Linux box and have successfully
> setup Linux red hat version 5.2 from a CD-ROM.
>
> Everything is working except my network ... I've spend hours in /usr/doc;
> however, I'm stuck and need a little help.
>
> Background:
>
> I have a cable modem with an ethernet hub. I have three static IP
> addresses: One for a Wintel PC, one for an iMac, and one for my Linux box.
> Both the Mac and PC are working fine. Information I received from my ISP
> (rogers@home) include:
>
> IP Address, Subnet Mask, Gateway/Router, Computer Name, DNS/Name Servers
> and Domain.
>
> I used this info during the Linux installation procedure.
>
> I have 3Com Etherlink III (3x509B).
>
> During my boot sequence I get this message:
>
> eth0:3c509 at 0c300 tag 1 10 baseT port, address 00 0a 24 0d 68 69 IRQ 10.
> ---> I assume this means linux has identified my network card
> ---> and has assigned it to device eth0. (These settings
> ---> jive with the DOS config program - Plug-in-Pray disabled)
>
> The next two lines are the killers:
>
> SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument
> SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable
>
> Not good, no? Hardware or network setting problem? I can't figure it out.
>
> I'm unsure what command is causing these messages (route?, ifconfig?) and I
> don't know where these commands are run from.
>
> My settings in /usr/sysconfig/network and
> /usr/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifconf-eth0 seem to be OK.
>
> pinging a numeric IP address results in :
> ping: sendto: Network is unreachable
> ping wrote 199.135.13.15 64 chars, ret=-1 (IP address fake in example)
>
> Free beer to the person who can help. Honest, well, if you live in
> Vancouver we'll head over to the Jolly Taxpayer for a beer or two :)
>
> TIA
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Leroy Banack email: banack<--nospam-->@home.com
> remove <--nospam--> to email me
> 1374 Sunnyside Drive, North Vancouver, B.C. V7R 1B1
> phone: (604) 983-3385 cell: (604) 841-2400
Can you ping yourself (the Linux box's IP address)? Next I'd
look at the mask you're using and verify that. Short of those
two things (the most common I've seen) it could have a bad NIC.
Bill
--
==============================================================
http://members.home.com/wcattell
==============================================================
Park not thy Harley in the darkness of thine garage, that it
may collect dust for want of being oft ridden. Ride thy Harley
with thy brethren, and rejoice in the spirit of the road.
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I have a network/computer problem
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 20:33:55 GMT
Hey all,
My roommate and I are trying to link our computers directly. I have a
"crossover" cord that goes PC to PC without a hub. His computer works
fine, however, when I first put the network card in(it's a 3com
etherlink III), and I turn the computer on, it goes to the setup utility
saying that there is an error 1800 for an adaptor resource conflict.
How can I fix this so the computers can talk to each other and the error
message can go away??? Any help from anybody is greatly appreciated.
the headhunter242
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
