[Freedos-user] Networking
Michael B. Brutman wrote: I don't think you have a networking problem; I think it is a hardware problem, or very bad device driver settings. Could you give any hints on the device driver settings part? General failure reading drive C is a bad sign. I would make a new backup of that server hard drive (do not overwrite an existing backup in case the backup fails mid-way). Yes, we backup often. It's the data of 15,000 patients currently, due to grow to 30,000! But don't be too concerned about the General failure reading drive C: we have been using the same machine as standalone, and it works perfectly as long as it is not networked. Besides, during testing we tried different hard disks, NICs and whole boxes, including my own at home (the one I'm now writing on), which reproduced the exact same problem when networked, and otherwise works just fine. What OS are you running? [..] You can do better with a current (or recent, but not new) Linux running with a text console [..] and Linux is robust and easier to diagnose when hardware or software is misbehaving. I'm running FreeDOS, but yes, Linux is a possibility. This database project started modestly in 2006, but now the Health Center is relying more and more on it, so I want it to be very safe. Still I would definitely prefer to stay with FreeDOS if at all possible :-) It would be much simpler for me too -- I do this as voluntary work and don't earn anything for it. If you have Pentium gear you probably have 100Mb/sec hardware, so that number is closer to 10 times more. Are your clients accessing this database really generating 1MB or more of data per second? I understand the NIC is 100Mb/sec, and Yes, the load must be quite low. The current *total* file size of all database tables is just 4.4 MB. -- Eric Auer wrote: Did you try using only UIDE or only LBACache for caching? I used UIDE *or* LBACache, not both simultaneously. If you use UIDE, did you try BIOS mode so it only caches but does not provide UDMA I/O? I'll try that. And have you tried using higher STACKS settings? As far as I remember, LBACache also had an option to provide more stack - but I probably made that the default and removed the option? Read docs ;-) I did, by changing it in fdconfig.sys. I usually have stacks=0,0, and I tried with other values such as stacks=16,256. Note that there are multiple free versions of SHARE, possibly involving Tom and/or Japheth. I think there is a version with improved compatibility with s.th. on Japheth's homepage, for example? But it probably is a good idea to use SHARE in general, if it works? I downloaded SHARE from Japheth's site, and it turned out to be the same file I had. Where could I find other versions? I Couldn't find it by searching the internet, perhaps because 'share' is too common a word. -- Ralf A. Quint wrote: What I remember and at least the available DP manuals also state is that DP is using the very basic DOS (un)lock file region call of DOS 3.0+ to allow concurrent access to the same database on a network. That would be specifically INT21h/AH=5Ch, and that call needs to be properly supported in FreeDOS to begin with. I suppose that would involve changing SHARE or the kernel. Any file caching software should not touch access to networked drives (on the clients) and on the local machine that acts as server, it needs to be aware of the locking call and act accordingly... I'll do a test with no caching in server and client. -- Thanks for the support! Marcos Marcos Fávero Florence de Barros Campinas, Brazil -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
Hi Marcos , So where exactly is the file server that's storing the data file(s) in this scenario? Is it on the doctor's PC, assistant's PC, or some other location? In another location. could you be more specific about 1) where is the database located (not geografically, but what machine) 2) what's the 'servers' operating system ? if the answer to 2) is 'FreeDOS' then either SHARE.EXE is not running or SHARE.EXE is buggy. the latter is quite likely as it was never really tested against network access. try using MSDOS or linux (or even Windows) for the 'server' machine, and see if the problema go away hardware problems are very unlikely, given the symptoms you describe. Tom -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
I remember databases benefitting from a high amount of file handles, not 'benefit'. for some problems, many handles are needed, otherwise the database will not work at all. there is NEVER spurious problems caused by too many handles. but likely that's already being taken care of by caching software. ??? I downloaded SHARE from Japheth's site, and it turned out to be the same file I had. Where could I find other versions? I Couldn't find it by searching the internet, perhaps because 'share' is too common a word. Japheth's SHARE is probably the one and only SHARE for FreeDOS. no use to search the internet Tom -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
Hi, On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote: Op 16-6-2012 15:25, Marcos Favero Florence de Barros schreef: I downloaded SHARE from Japheth's site, and it turned out to be the same file I had. Where could I find other versions? I Couldn't find it by searching the internet, perhaps because 'share' is too common a word. I thought the FreeDOS kernel would contain SHARE, but apparently not. I vaguely thought so too, but I see no binary in ke2041_86f32.ZIP. But ke2041s.zip has SOURCE/ke2041/share/share.c and share.hlp and makefile (TC201), so it should be easy to build. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
I'm running FreeDOS, but yes, Linux is a possibility. This database project started modestly in 2006, but now the Health Center is relying more and more on it, so I want it to be very safe. in that case don't gamble with untested share.exe Still I would definitely prefer to stay with FreeDOS if at all possible :-) good luck Tom -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
Hi, On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Tom Ehlert t...@drivesnapshot.de wrote: Japheth's SHARE is probably the one and only SHARE for FreeDOS. no use to search the internet If I remember correctly (but haven't tested), Japheth made some minor adjustments for FreeDOS (only) to SHARE to work better with a few weird programs in Win 3.1, but this SHARE is far from complete and not a full replacement for the equivalent from MS-DOS. But you'd have to ask him for more details, obviously. Share: This is a version of FreeDOS Share which has a bug fixed making it impossible to run MS Office applications under Windows 3.1. This version of Share runs with FreeDOS only.DOS 08/2006 SHARE (20 kB) http://www.japheth.de/Download/DOS/SHARE.zip -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] (no subject)
Tom Ehlert: could you be more specific about 1) where is the database located (not geografically, but what machine) 2) what's the 'servers' operating system ? The database is in a Pentium machine running FreeDOS and MS-Client with a Realtek RTL8139 network adapter card. I'm at home now, so I don't have more details. if the answer to 2) is 'FreeDOS' then either SHARE.EXE is not running or SHARE.EXE is buggy. the latter is quite likely as it was never really tested against network access. I think SHARE.COM must be running because the two-computer test network works perfectly -- as long as the two users won't press and hold arrow keys of PgUp/PgDn simultaneously, or try to run reports from the client. In other words, as long as server and client don't attempt to access the hard drive in the same millisecond or so. try using MSDOS or linux (or even Windows) for the 'server' machine, and see if the problema go away Bernd wrote: Anyway, are you (legally) able to test your setup against an MS-DOS environment instead of FreeDOS? That could determine (or rule out) some issues. Yes, I can do that. I was a MS-DOS user until 2007 when I changed to FreeDOS. I'll test and report back. Marcos -- Marcos Fávero Florence de Barros Campinas, Brazil -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
but likely that's already being taken care of by caching software. ??? UIDE and LBACACHE will only work with INT 13h (local) drives, not network drives. Caching shouldn't be an issue, at least for the clients -- could be a problem on the server, though. According to RBIL, DR/Novell/Caldera DOS didn't correctly and fully support INT 21.5C until version 7, so it wouldn't surprise me very much if FreeDOS doesn't fully support it yet. I'm thinking the best thing to do is try MS-DOS on the server. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] (no subject)
if the answer to 2) is 'FreeDOS' then either SHARE.EXE is not running or SHARE.EXE is buggy. the latter is quite likely as it was never really tested against network access. I think SHARE.COM must be running because the two-computer test network works perfectly -- as long as the two users won't press and hold arrow keys of PgUp/PgDn simultaneously, or try to run reports from the client. In other words, as long as server and client don't attempt to access the hard drive in the same millisecond or so. That is not the right way to determine whether SHARE is loaded. Your conclusion hence might quite plausibly be wrong. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
Hi Tom, This might be irrelevant to the case at hand. if the answer to 2) is 'FreeDOS' then either SHARE.EXE is not running or SHARE.EXE is buggy. the latter is quite likely as it was never really tested against network access. If you know; does FreeDOS's file locking (ie SHARE) propagate file metadata changes to all SFTs referring to the same file? Here's some context for anyone interested: http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/forum_entry.php?id=11572 Regards, Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] Networking
Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote: [..] test your setup against an MS-DOS environment instead of FreeDOS? That could determine (or rule out) some issues. Tom Ehlert t...@drivesnapshot.de wrote: try using MSDOS or linux (or even Windows) for the 'server' machine, and see if the problema go away I did the test with MS-DOS in the server and FreeDOS in the client. The problem vanished. I even used MODE con rate=32 which is the fastest typematic rate, and kept the arrow keys and PgUp/PgDn pressed in both computers for about a minute. The system is completely stable. Marcos -- Marcos Fávero Florence de Barros Campinas, Brazil -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
Am 15.06.2012 um 23:26 schrieb Marcos Favero Florence de Barros: It did work, but it turned out to be very fragile. As soon as the two people use the database more intensively, the system crashes -- in most cases, both server and client. If on the other hand they do things slowly, it works just fine. The hardware is mostly early Pentiums donated to us. The network software is MS-Client. Server Side: As I understand it, you use a FreeDOS machine with MS Client as server. To have server functions, you updated MS Client with WG1049.EXE (which is not legal but also not officially forbidden, see: http://www.jacco2.dds.nl/samba/dos.html#msclient ). Client Side: FreeDOS with MS Client as client. It's been a few years since I played a lot with FreeDOS and MS Client as server and as far as I remember it was never working great for me. Fragile is the word I have in mind too when I remember MS Client as server. I have read that MS Client with MS DOS works OK for you. But if you want to stick with Free Software, why not use a real Samba server together with the FreeDOS/MS Client clients? A Pentium 1 should be enough for that. Download for instance Debian Stable from here: http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.5/i386/iso-cd/debian-6.0.5-i386-netinst.iso and when it comes to step Software selection choose File server. This will install Samba. Don't install a desktop environment. The following configuration file for Samba (/etc/smb.conf) works fine with MS Client on FreeDOS: #=== Global Settings === [global] workgroup = WORKGROUP server string = %h (Samba %v) wins support = yes os level = 65 domain master = yes local master = yes preferred master = yes name resolve order = hosts lmhosts host wins bcast dns proxy = no lm announce = true lanman auth = yes #=== Authentication security = share encrypt passwords = true invalid users = root unix password sync = false passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u passwd chat = *Enter\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *password\supdated\ssuccessfully* . max log size = 100 #=== Misc socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY SO_SNDBUF=4096 SO_RCVBUF=4096 ; Name mangling options for DOS clients case sensitive = no default case = upper preserve case = no short preserve case = no mangle case = yes mangled names= yes mangling method = hash mangle prefix = 6 ; charsets ; unix charset = UTF-8 unix charset = ISO8859-15 dos charset = 850 #=== Shares == [share] comment = Samba Share writeable = true path = /home/USERNAME browseable = yes #=== Please exchange the name of the WORKGROUP with the name you want to use. Please exchange USERNAME with the name of the user you configured in Debian. After you configured the above smb.conf, you have to update his password again with the command sudo smbpasswd -a username. This update is necessary to make lanman auth work. For more info see: http://www.heise.de/ct/hotline/Samba-DOS-Client-zickt-1172774.html On the clients, please edit the line in MS Client's SYSTEM.INI workgroup=WORKGROUP to have the same workgroup name as in smb.conf. I use the full redirector, so in SYSTEM.INI the line is preferredredir=full Also on the clients, please edit the line in MS Client's SYSTEM.INI username=USERNAME to point to the user configured in Debian and Samba. Now reboot the DOS machine with the new user configured. If you start MS Client f.i. by typing net view, it will automatically ask you for your password and store it in the users password list file (*.pwl). You can now connect the FreeDOS machine to your Samba server by typing net use I: \\NAMEOFSERVER\SHARE and have the Samba share mapped to drive I: on the client. I just tested it and it works for me. regards Ulrich -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Networking
Pardon the intrusion from my unexperienced self, just a few questions On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Ulrich Hansen uhan...@mainz-online.de wrote: I have read that MS Client with MS DOS works OK for you. But if you want to stick with Free Software, why not use a real Samba server together with the FreeDOS/MS Client clients? A Pentium 1 should be enough for that. Download for instance Debian Stable from here: http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.5/i386/iso-cd/debian-6.0.5-i386-netinst.iso Eek, 191 MB, and that's not even everything, is it?:-( and when it comes to step Software selection choose File server. This will install Samba. Don't install a desktop environment. Excellent details, even better if it actually works! ;-) But does Debian run on i386 [sic] anymore? I thought most people had (unfortunately) switched to i686 (CMOVxx), e.g. Fedora. Or is Debian more lenient?? Even if the cpu instructions themselves are compatible (no CMOVxx, which Pentium 1 lacks), you may not have enough RAM. I don't know for sure, but everything I had read always seemed to hint that a Pentium typically couldn't have more than 64 MB, so trying to cram a recent Debian might be a bit of a stretch, to say the least. I have no idea of a better solution, unfortunately, only a blind guess that maybe?? Slackware 11.0 (circa 2006), aka ZipSlack, might work? At least it's easy to install atop DOS (kernel 2.4.x) and is only 67 MB .ZIP'd. I'd assume it has lower RAM requirements. Though it's not a full install by any means, but you can add on any extras you need (supposedly). ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-11.0/zipslack/ Well, hopefully everything Ulrich said will just work without worrying about all this extra stuff. Good luck! -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
