Title: Re: Netatalk and OS9 Open Issues
At 4:25 PM -0400 4/5/2000, bryan stalcup wrote:
Hi!
 
i've got to setup a new server for mac and pc clients. i've been using netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.1.3-6.i386.rpm with redhat 6.0/6.1 for about a year now, primarily with OS8 clients, mostly 8.6. However, i have about 4 OS9 G4's on this new network, and i'm concerned. should i consider using win2k?

I have found netatalk 2.1.4 (with my slight makefile mods) runs faster than win2k on the same hardware. We are talking about a 1.2MB/sec difference here. I must admit, I have a copy of Win2k server, but the only thing I found it really useful for is a Quake III arena server!!

 
issues with the latest version as best i've been able to keep track of include:
1 DID's (primarily affects folder aliases, i can live with this problem for the time being)

It is a problem
2 case issues (i.e., This.txt and this.txt can coexist on the server, but not on the mac)

Yes, it's a problem. you just need to educate your users.
3 codepage issues (i've saved a recent email that showed a working netatalk/samba codepage setup, so this may go away)
4 quark file saving issues (not clear on what all the symptoms are, could someone elaborate?)

If you use 2.1.3, you WILL get quark saving problems on the new G4s. You need to use 2.1.4(latest) and turn off the new file locking code for quark to work properly. I have several servers with this setup working fine. I have posted the detail to this mailing list several times, have a look through the archives.

5 file locking issues (simultaneous access by a pc and a mac client leading to file corruption)

unsure...???
6 installation issues with redhat 6.2 (is there a site with detailed information on getting this working?)

Again, look through the archives, there is a simple fix for this.

 
any other issues i've missed?
 
thanks in advance
 
bryan stalcup

--
========================================================

"Always ask the question, never assume the answer."
          Marcus Radich 1999

========================================================

Reply via email to