Re: Win NT a Linux SMB
2009/5/21 Angel Guadarrama chaoskl...@esdebian.org: Con net rpc vampire -S Servidor_PDC puedes exportar los usuarios y las permisologias. Primero deberías configurar el servidor Linux como BDC para exportar. Esto te servira: http://rolandpish.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/samba-pdc-openldap-en-debian-etch/ Gracias, ya ando trabajando en ello. Saludos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Win NT a Linux SMB
Que tal, tengo una inquietud ojalá y me puedan ayudar. Hay un servidor Win NT con aproximadamente 500 usuarios que comparten archivos. Desde cada computadora (WIN) acceden a este servidor para pasarse información y tienen permisos de escritura por grupos y por usuarios. La cosa es sustituir este Win NT por un flamante Debian utilizando samba. Aparte de configurar Samba y que quede bien chulo funcionando, es decir usuarios, grupos, logs, etc... ¿existe algún método, tutorial que conozcan para hacer la exportación de usuarios, contraseñas, copiado entero de los directorios y sus permisos de Win NT a Debian sin tenerlo que hacer a pie? y ya abusando si es que la respuesta es que no hay forma mas que manual, ¿cómo extraigo los usuarios de Win NT y los exporto a Samba? Saludos y gracias desde ya. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Win NT a Linux SMB
Con net rpc vampire -S Servidor_PDC puedes exportar los usuarios y las permisologias. Primero deberías configurar el servidor Linux como BDC para exportar. Esto te servira: http://rolandpish.wordpress.com/2007/10/20/samba-pdc-openldap-en-debian-etch/ Angel A. Guadarrama B. Tlf.: +584121456995; Ubuntu Jaunty - Debian Squeeza - FreeBSD 7 Maracay - Venezuela http://angel-79.blogspot.com/ - www.lugma.org.ve
Pregunat Migracion NT A LINUX
Hola Foro,, Alguien sabe si es posible pasar los usuarios de SmbPasswd a usuarios del Sistema, ya que con Pwdump pude extraer la Sam de mi NT pero solo la genera en formato smbpasswd. Si existe alguna herramienta para pasar smbpasswd a usuarios del sistema, se acabarian mis problemas...
Re: Pregunat Migracion NT A LINUX
Soporte Tecnico internueve S.R.L wrote: Hola Foro,, Alguien sabe si es posible pasar los usuarios de SmbPasswd a usuarios del Sistema, ya que con Pwdump pude extraer la Sam de mi NT pero solo la genera en formato smbpasswd. Si existe alguna herramienta para pasar smbpasswd a usuarios del sistema, se acabarian mis problemas... Aprende el lenguaje AWK. Como manual te recomiendo el de gawk. Échale un vistazo a /usr/sbin/mksmbpasswd, que convierte de passwd a smbpasswd y verás que solamente tienes que hacer lo contrario. (Eso sí, las contraseñas no son intercambiables así como así pues estan cifradas con funciones distintas).
Re: Pregunat Migracion NT A LINUX
OK.. pero no sabes si existe algo que migre automaticamente.. Gracias. - Original Message - From: Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Soporte Tecnico internueve S.R.L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:03 PM Subject: Re: Pregunat Migracion NT A LINUX Soporte Tecnico internueve S.R.L wrote: Hola Foro,, Alguien sabe si es posible pasar los usuarios de SmbPasswd a usuarios del Sistema, ya que con Pwdump pude extraer la Sam de mi NT pero solo la genera en formato smbpasswd. Si existe alguna herramienta para pasar smbpasswd a usuarios del sistema, se acabarian mis problemas... Aprende el lenguaje AWK. Como manual te recomiendo el de gawk. Échale un vistazo a /usr/sbin/mksmbpasswd, que convierte de passwd a smbpasswd y verás que solamente tienes que hacer lo contrario. (Eso sí, las contraseñas no son intercambiables así como así pues estan cifradas con funciones distintas). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pregunat Migracion NT A LINUX
OK.. pero no sabes si existe algo que migre automaticamente.. No se puede hacer directamente, los algoritmos de cifrado de contraseñas son diferentes en Unix y en Windows... Tendrás probablemente que regenerar las contraseñas. La información general del usuario sí es migrable, aunque tendrás que re-hacer muchas cosas por tu cuenta... Recuerda que Windows y Unix tienen filosofías generales muy diferentes. Pedir algo automático sin intervención del usuario es, en el mejor de los casos, ingenuo. En el peor... Mejor luego platicamos ;-) Hola Foro,, Alguien sabe si es posible pasar los usuarios de SmbPasswd a usuarios del Sistema, ya que con Pwdump pude extraer la Sam de mi NT pero solo la genera en formato smbpasswd. Si existe alguna herramienta para pasar smbpasswd a usuarios del sistema, se acabarian mis problemas... Aprende el lenguaje AWK. Como manual te recomiendo el de gawk. Échale un vistazo a /usr/sbin/mksmbpasswd, que convierte de passwd a smbpasswd y verás que solamente tienes que hacer lo contrario. (Eso sí, las contraseñas no son intercambiables así como así pues estan cifradas con funciones distintas). -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5623-1118 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Proxy NT i Linux
Jest tak brama do netu to Win NT + proxy. Teraz ja chce sie połaczyc. Co musze do instalowac aby mogl z linuxa wyjsc na swiat. Pod winde jest klient proxy a pod linuxa nie znalazłem. Czy gdzies jest jakies info jak to zrobic ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proxy NT i Linux
Dariusz Michałek wrote: [...] : Jest tak brama do netu to Win NT + proxy. Teraz ja chce sie połaczyc. Co : musze do instalowac aby mogl z linuxa wyjsc na swiat. Pod winde jest klient : proxy a pod linuxa nie znalazłem. Czy gdzies jest jakies info jak to zrobic : ? Jeśli to proxy to SOCKS to zainstaluj i skonfiguruj dante-client -- Daniel Podlejski [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... We come from the land of the ice and snow, From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tunneling ssh para redes NT-GNU/Linux
Hola a todos. Antes de nada decir que he leído y buscado por internet todo lo relacionado con tunneling y no he encontrado una respuesta, es por eso que la formulo aquí. Estoy reorganizando dos empresas (que trabajan con NT,2000,etc..) y les estoy pasando a GNU/Linux. Como no puedo quitar todo el sistema de un plumazo(son muchas máquinas) estoy empezando con los servidores (samba, apache, dns...). Pero en fin, que tenían las dos empresas conectadas por internet mediante terminal server (56 Bits). La idea es montar una VPN haciendo tunneling sobre ssh.Buscando he encontrado vtun, PopTop y un largo etc, pero... ¿no se podrían conectar las dos redes como se hace por ejemplo con vnc sobre ssh, redirigiendo los puertosde compartir archivos de win?. Es que si no hay más remedio instalo alguna aplicación de las antes mencionadas, pero me resulta bastante más fácil hacer tunneling a los puertos de compartir archivos de win2. ¿Alguien lo ha probado?¿Que problemas de seguridad se pueden plantear?, y sobre todo ¿es posible?. Gracias de ante mano P.D. Si consigo algo lo reportaré por si a alguien le interesa. Hasta luego.---La actualidad nacional e internacional durante las 24 horas: infórmate on linehttp://actualidad.eresmas.com/
Re: [P] Ejecutar programa de un nt en Linux
Donde yo trabajo hay varios ordenadores con linux y NT bajo vmware. Parece que van MUY bien. Totalmente transparente al usuario. Ni se enteran de que esté el Linux detrás. Eso si, hay gente con dos micros. Eso ayuda ;-) Pero si tienes bastante máquina a lo mejor te soluciona dos problemas, el del programa que no te funciona y el de instalar linux cpp (casi por todas partes) y nt en algún sitio sin desaprovechar la licencia. Un saludo. On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Yaro Páez wrote: Buen día lista. Hay un servidor NT en la empresa el cual corre un software contable en cobol, los dueños no quieren bajar el NT por no perder el costo de las licencias. Ahora quieren instalar en las estaciones Linux pero el problema es la ejecución de la aplicacion pues por samba puedo ver los archivos pero no ejecutar la aplicacion, probé el vnc; corre bien las aplicaciones pero es solo un soft de administracion y hace eco en el servidor, se me ocurrio instalar en el dosemu un dos 6.22 y correr el cliente msdos pero cuando inicializa aborta sacandome del dosemu, busque el vmware pero cada licencia cuesta us$299. Se que es absurdo pero tengo fé que hay una solución con Linux. Gracias de antemano por la ayuda. _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null - Ignacio García Fernández [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Un matemático es un ciego en un cuarto oscuro buscando un gato negro que no está allí' C. Darwin.
Re: [P] Ejecutar programa de un nt en Linux
Tal vez ya lo pensaste, pero has intentado con WINE Saludos Alejandro RomeroMultimedios Estrellas de Oro Yaro Páez[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/14/00 03:54pm Buen día lista.Hay un servidor NT en la empresa el cual corre un software contable en cobol, los dueños no quieren bajar el NT por no perder el costo de las licencias. Ahora quieren instalar en las estaciones Linux pero el problema es la ejecución de la aplicacion pues por samba puedo ver los archivos pero no ejecutar la aplicacion, probé el vnc; corre bien las aplicaciones pero es solo un soft de administracion y hace eco en el servidor, se me ocurrio instalar en el dosemu un dos 6.22 y correr el cliente msdos pero cuando inicializa aborta sacandome del dosemu, busque el vmware pero cada licencia cuesta us$299.Se que es absurdo pero tengo fé que hay una solución con Linux.Gracias de antemano por la ayuda._Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.-- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Migrando de NT a Linux?
Hola a todos: Hace muy poco que estoy con linux y de ahi esta pregunta. Doy soporte a varias companias y todas ellas con Windows NT. Una de ellas debe regularizar su software (todo, luego de una inspeccion) costo total 27.000 dolares americanos, al dueño casi le da un infarto. Sugeri Linux!. Tengo seis meses para implementar todo. Voy a detallar la configuracion actual de la empresa y quisiera que alguien me cambie lo que puse en mayuscula por su mejor contraparte en Linux si existe. Dos servidores uno para servidor de archivos (S1) otro para comunicaciones (S2)en S1 tengo WINDOWS NT (SBS) con SQL SERVER , ARCSERVER para los respaldos en un tape drive, en el otro tengo (S2) tengo EXCHANGE , INTERNET INFORMATION SERVER, PROXY SERVER, los pcs 30 tiene todos WINDOWS NT WKS , MICRSOFT OFFICE 97, y una pequeña aplicacion VB cliente servidor , se conecta al SQL SERVER.Ademas tienen PROXY CLIENT para salir a internet y un EXCHANGE CLIENT , que le permite enviar y recibir tanto correo interno como de internet a travez del EXCHANGE SERVER.EL sito se esta armando con IIS. Es posible tener exactamente esta misma configuracion con linux? Gracias a todos Diego
Re: Migrando de NT a Linux?
On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 09:27:36AM -0300, Diego Mariani wrote: Hola a todos: Hola Diego, soporte a varias companias y todas ellas con Windows NT. Una de ellas debe regularizar su software (todo, luego de una inspeccion) costo total 27.000 dolares americanos, al dueño casi le da un infarto. Sugeri Linux!. Tengo seis meses para implementar todo. Voy a detallar la configuracion actual de Me parece muy bien. Es un reto muy interesante, pero vas a tener un montón de ayudantes. :-) Dos servidores uno para servidor de archivos (S1) otro para comunicaciones (S2)en S1 tengo WINDOWS NT (SBS) con SQL SERVER , ARCSERVER para los respaldos en un tape drive, en el otro tengo (S2) tengo EXCHANGE , INTERNET INFORMATION SERVER, PROXY SERVER, los pcs 30 tiene todos WINDOWS NT WKS , MICRSOFT OFFICE 97, y una pequeña aplicacion VB cliente servidor , se conecta al SQL SERVER.Ademas tienen PROXY CLIENT para salir a internet y un EXCHANGE CLIENT , que le permite enviar y recibir tanto correo interno como de internet a travez del EXCHANGE SERVER.EL sito se esta armando con IIS. Bien te propongo sustitutos: Windows NT Cualquier distribución Linux SQL Server Postresql Arcserver Hay varias utilidades para hacer las copias de seguridad. No uso ninguna pero creo que no vas a tener ningún problema en encontrarlas o preparar algunos scripts de backup/restore. ExchangeAquí probablemente te iria bien un servidor pop, como por ejemplo ipopd o qpopper. Con esto perderías alguna de las funcionalidades del exchange que nunca se usan -los votos, las agendas compartidas, etc-. Tendrías las cuentas de correo. IIS Apache si es un sitio Web de verdad, Boa si es una intranet o un sitio web más ligerito, o que está empezando. Proxy ServerSquid Windows NT WKS Cualquier distribución Linux (Idealmente la misma que en los servidores para facilidad de configuración) Office 97 Staroffice Proxy clientNo se necesita nada similar. Exchange client Cualquier MUA (Mail User Agent), los hay a patadas. Probable- mente kmail de KDE sea lo que más cómodo sea para usuarios acostubrados a productos MS. Aplicación VB Nueva aplicación en Perl/Tk, Perl/Gtk, Tck/Tk. Esta te la tendrás que hacer a manini. Como ves tienes alternativa para todo. Además el cambio no tiene que ser radical, puedes cambiar los servidores y dejar los clientes como están, e ir cambiándolos poco a poco, según avance la formación. Las funcionalidades son similares en todos los casos, pero puede haber peculiaridades a tener en cuenta, sobre todo en el caso del Exchange y de la aplicación en VB. Saludos y suerte. -- Luis Arocha Hernandez data [EMAIL PROTECTED] Islas Canarias - SpainICQ UIN: 72307025 \ | / | -( )-/|\ / | \ /_|_\ /__|__\ \_/___|___\_ -\ o o o )-- ~~ GNU/Linux Debian Potato,kernel 2.2.16,Toshiba 220CS.Usuario #69587
Re: Interacción de NT y Linux
Manuel Jerez Cßrdenes wrote: Hola a todos, mi pregunta es muy sencillita, ¿es posible desde Linux montar una partición que tiene un sistema de ficheros NTFS? ... En los kernels 2.2.x hay una opción para montar particiones ntfs. Si además habilitas las opciones experimentales, aparece la posibilidad de incluir el soporte para escritura, pero antes de usarla te recomiendan hacer un backup completo. -- Saludos, O__ Enzo.,/ ()=\() Enzo A. Dari | Instituto Balseiro / Centro Atomico Bariloche 8400-San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 54-2944-445208, 54-2944-445100 Fax: 54-2944-445299 Web page: http://cabmec1.cnea.gov.ar/darie/darie.htm
Re: Interacción de NT y Linux
Manuel Jerez Cßrdenes wrote: Hola a todos, mi pregunta es muy sencillita, ¿es posible desde Linux montar una partición que tiene un sistema de ficheros NTFS? Un saludo. Creo que recientemente se dispone de un driver, no me acuerdo mas detalles
RV: Interacción de NT y Linux
Yo lo he logrado actualizando el kernel a la version 2.2.1 Trae incorporado en el kernel el soporte para tipo de particion NTFS (read-only). Como experimental y a riesgo de uno existe la opcion de montarla rw ( esto no lo he probado ) -Mensaje original- De: Manuel Jerez Cßrdenes [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: Viernes 23 de Abril de 1999 11:12 Para: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org CC: recipient.list.not.shown Asunto: Interacción de NT y Linux Hola a todos, mi pregunta es muy sencillita, ¿es posible desde Linux montar una partición que tiene un sistema de ficheros NTFS? Un saludo. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Interacción de NT y Linux
Julio Cesar Gazquez wrote: Manuel Jerez Cßrdenes wrote: Hola a todos, mi pregunta es muy sencillita, ¿es posible desde Linux montar una partición que tiene un sistema de ficheros NTFS? Un saludo. Creo que recientemente se dispone de un driver, no me acuerdo mas detalles -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Si que hay un driver, aunque unicamente te permite leer la particion NTFS. De momento no parece ser posible escribir. Si lees ingles, echale un vistazo a esta pagina (lo siento, pero no pude encontrar nada en castellano): http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~loewis/ntfs/ Nitebirdz -- It's not too late to turn back from the Gates of Hell... Linux: the free 32-bit operating system, available NOW. Why waait for NT? (Brandon S. Allbery)
Interacción de NT y Linux
Hola a todos, mi pregunta es muy sencillita, ¿es posible desde Linux montar una partición que tiene un sistema de ficheros NTFS? Un saludo.
NT vs Linux as web server
My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up! (ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word) Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising! Rich Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 10:45:01AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Well, start with zdnet, who did reviews with the exact same benchmarks and came to almost the opposite conclusions. Also, try lwn.net, which is compiling a list of grevious errors in this study. -- Ian Peters I never let schooling interfere with my education. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Twain
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Peter S Galbraith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Linux Weekly News (www.lwn.com) is formulating a reply about the inconsistencies/inaccuracies of those tests (I believe the samba server was somewhat crippled among other things), not to mention that they were sponsored BY Microsoft. Check out the response on Slashdot (www.slashdot.org) for other problems. As my Probability and Statistics professor says you can make statistics say whatever you want, but it's not always accurate .adam -- Adam Lazur - Computer Engineering Undergrad - Lehigh University icq# 3354423 - http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4 Besides, I think Slackware sounds better than 'Microsoft,' don't you? -Patrick Volkerding
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter- 1) The white-paper was commissioned by MS. It's right there in the paper. That's the most telling fact in the whole paper. 2) http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft.phtml has a list of critiques of the proposal, including the suggestion that they deliberately used a kernel (2.2.2) with known networking problems. They also have a list of links with research you can use to counter theirs, from several respected and independent news sources. 3) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/14/0042212 is /.'s thread on this- lots of interesting observations and criticisms. Make sure you set Highest Scores First- otherwise you will have to search forever to find the pertinent ones. Good luck- I'd strongly suggest sending out at least the lwn.net link to counter the FUD. -Luis ### They call the faithful to their knees to hear the softly spoken magic spell: There's no place like home... There's no place like home... There's no place like home. -Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon -Dorothy, The Wizard of Oz ###
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Actually, you can find several opposing views directly in the white paper. First of all, the test was sponsored by MS. Try finding an independant test and check the results. ZDnet did one a while back with very different results. Here are a couple of links to check out: http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2196106,00.html http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,396321,00.html Note that these links only really talk about file serving, not web serving. However, they do take some credibility away from the mindcraft survey. There is also a response to the study over at Linux Weekly News: http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft.phtml It appears as though Mindcraft spent quite a bit of time tuning NT, and very little time tuning Linux. So, I suppose you should start at the links I've given here. You also might want to talk to some people who use Linux every day for high volume web serving. Rob Malda at Slashdot.org would be worth talking to. His site gets a huge number of hits every day, and really performs quite well considering the amount of dynamic content. noah PGP public key available at http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/home/httpd/n/nmeyerha/mail.html or by 'finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED]' This message was composed in a 100% Microsoft free environment. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNxTEm4dCcpBjGWoFAQF4hQP+LvVsj/m8bqr80UJnb5AyGjwq8adLnF7Z 3Y8VSAxq5dJXq2MykdrH9tF/WwO0Pt8jlYvx4uzU1aNSyXLgdIXJ5g48JrlofG+p /Kyiv8H9xlTUUkSyPCGrbnlJs1XSGV0GidOgQk1BuyLw3Na1CERlJfl5U6NRl9Al uwewmcSWWOk= =UfiY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
note the following about 4/5 of the way through Mindcraft, Inc. conducted the performance tests described in this report between March 10 and March 13, 1999. Microsoft Corporation sponsored the testing reported herein. -Michael On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Michael Stenner Office Phone: 919-660-2513 Duke University, Dept. of Physics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Box 90305, Durham N.C. 27708-0305
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
There have been a lot of discussion on this benchmark on slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org). I had time to take a galnce and it seems that the benchmark is biased. It seems they have done a very good tunning of the NT box and a poor one for the linux box. As a small exemple they have used a server with 4GB of RAM. NT could handle it, but they claim taht linux (kernel 2.2) did recognize only 1 GB. I may be confused but doesn't the new kernel support at least 2GB (I am sure I have seen some VA research workstations with 2GB). What is the maximum linux kernel can handle? Paulo. -- Paulo José da Silva e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.D. Student in Applied Math. University of São Paulo - Brazil http://www.ime.usp.br/~rsilva May the code be with you :-)
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
I have just read the lwn comments. They have pointed out that the NT server was setted to use only 1GB of memory, so my last example of biased tunning doens't apply. Sorry for my error :-). Any way I would be glad to know which is the maximum amount of RAM kernel 2.2 can handle. Thank you all, Paulo -- Paulo José da Silva e Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph.D. Student in Applied Math. University of São Paulo - Brazil http://www.ime.usp.br/~rsilva May the code be with you :-)
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
The March 22 issue of Smart Reseller (www.smartreseller.com) compared NT and Linux running Samba and it had Linux/Samba way ahead. So I was very surprized to see the test by Mindcraft. Try the following: www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/infopack/0,5483,387506,00.html There are two links on that page -- one for Samba, one for Apache. In both articles, NT fails in the 10 to 12 user area. Good luck! -- Gregory Wood Farsight Computer 1219 W University Blvd Odessa TX 79764 Voice: 1-915-335-0879 Member: CT Pioneers Luis Villa wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter- 1) The white-paper was commissioned by MS. It's right there in the paper. That's the most telling fact in the whole paper. 2) http://lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft.phtml has a list of critiques of the proposal, including the suggestion that they deliberately used a kernel (2.2.2) with known networking problems. They also have a list of links with research you can use to counter theirs, from several respected and independent news sources. 3) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/14/0042212 is /.'s thread on this- lots of interesting observations and criticisms. Make sure you set Highest Scores First- otherwise you will have to search forever to find the pertinent ones. Good luck- I'd strongly suggest sending out at least the lwn.net link to counter the FUD. -Luis ### They call the faithful to their knees to hear the softly spoken magic spell: There's no place like home... There's no place like home... There's no place like home. -Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon -Dorothy, The Wizard of Oz ### -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Gregory Wood Farsight Computer 1219 W University Blvd Odessa TX 79764 Voice: 1-915-335-0879 Member: CT Pioneers
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Spring 1999 Issue of linux magazine, page 42: LINUX OUTPERFORMED WINDOWS by as much as 250% for 12 or more client systems. (emphasis theirs, this is regarding SAMBA) If I may say so, both sides seem to be generating a lot of FUD on this. In my own (unscientific) studies, Linux has outperformed NT, but only because Linux is operating without a processor-intensive GUI, and without other unnecessary (for a file server, anyway) support services (which are darn near impossible to remove on an NT Server). Generally, the most important things to consider on these X is faster than Y comparisons is to check the science behind the comparison. If Windows NT is faster than Linux on a two-machine network, how does that matter to you on your 100 machine LAN? If the article is hesitant to describe the methodology behind their study, and if it sounds too much like laboratory conditions, than the study is bogus. On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Itf your looking for articles look at slashdot.org's achrive. But if I'm correct(I'd head to double check ) I belive the fine print say Micosoft payed for it. Also the configuration I believed was such that they would either cripple Linux or not optimize it liek they fine tuned NT. I could be wrong though... Philip Thiem(my backsspace is current broken is please ec[Dxcuse the typoes[D[Ds )
Re: NT vs Linux as web server
Adam Lazur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: ---SNIP--- Linux Weekly News (www.lwn.com) is formulating a reply about the ^ doh, make that .net -- Adam Lazur - Computer Engineering Undergrad - Lehigh University icq# 3354423 - http://www.lehigh.edu/~ajl4 Besides, I think Slackware sounds better than 'Microsoft,' don't you? -Patrick Volkerding
RE: NT vs Linux as web server
I clicked on the link a couple of minutes ago. It still hasn't come up! (ok, so it's probably the network in between, but I thought that was kinda ironic in the Alanis Morissette sense of the word) Sorry for the pointless posting: I'm supposed to be revising! Rich Came up fast for me. Also read it and saw that Microsoft sponsored the test... You want comments, look at slashdot.org - there's almost 600 of them! Peter S Galbraith wrote: My IT manager just EMailed me this article (CC'ed to a bunch of Directors, of course): http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 is 2.5 times faster than Linux as a File Server and 3.7 times faster as a Web Server. I'm sure I could dig up opposing reviews. Anyone know of any? Peter -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: NT y LINUX
El miércoles 07 de abril de 1999 a la(s) 11:23:30 +0100, Jose Marin contaba: comment No mandes HTML a la lista, please, que queda feo. /comment El mutt soporta MIME y al ver el attachment me llamó al lynx automáticamente. Aunque no deja de ser una pesadez. Podrias explicar un poco mejor lo que dices aqui? Si leo bien, el bootloader del LILO lo pones en /dev/hda2. Por lo cual, al arrancar, el bootloader que se cargaria es el que sigue estando en el MBR, el de WinNT (suponiendo que NT fue instalado antes que Linux). O donde me equivoco...? Con fdisk, se activa la partición de Linux y así al arrancar, se va directamente a Lilo, desde que el que llamamos a eneté si hace falta. Jose L. Marín [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept of Maths [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Just do it. David Serrano [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Registered User no. 87069 http://come.to/Hue-Bond.world In love with TuX. Linux 2.2.5 PGP Public key at http://www.ctv.es/USERS/fserrano/pgp_pubkey.asc
Re: NT y LINUX
Han Solo wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:58:17PM +0200, Ramiro Alba wrote: > > Tenemos Windows NT 4.0 instalado en una particin del primer disco y en > otra(s) > particiones del mismo disco instalamos Debian y onfiguramos Lilo para > que arranque de los 2 sistemas. El arranque de Linux ningn problema > pero el de NT comienza bien hasta que aparece la pantallita azul y > despues de unos 10 segundos falla estrepitosamente. Esto no ocurre si el > disrectorio root de Linux esta en una particion de otro discos. Si no es > el caso, me he visto obligado a poner el Lilo en disket para el > arranque dual. Hasta donde he podido me mirado la documentacin de Lilo > a fondo, pero no he dado con la causa. Alguien sabe que demonios pasa? > Yo lo planteara de otra manera, que es la que a mi me ha funcionado: instalas lilo en la particin que va contener a linux, siempre por debajo del cilindro 1024 y en disco master. Luego copias el sector de arranque de linux en un fichero, con dd if=/dev/hda2 of=/bootsect.lnx bs=521 count=1 (suponiendo que linux est en hda2). Lo siguiente es copiar el archivo /bootsect.lnx a c: Si c: es una particin ntfs, tendrs que copiarlo primero en un disco. Entonces editas el archivo boot.ini, que es (hablo de memoria) hidden,read-only,system. Antes de editarlo tendrs que cambiarle los atributos, pero luego acurdate de dejarlos como estaban. Como deca, editas el fichero y aades la lnea c:\bootsect.lnx="Linux" Con esto, sers capaz de arrancar linux desde el cargador de NT. Funciona perfectamente (doy fe); el nico inconveniente es que cada vez que retocas el lilo, tienes que copiar el sector de arranque de nuevo. Todo esto viene mejor explicado en el howto Linux+NT+loader (creo que se llamaba as) y en el nmero 5 de Linux Actual. -- Un Saludo Han Solo The Rebel Alliance Conecto, luego existo. Desconecto, luego insisto. Soy usuario de infobirria+ P.D. La firma no es ma, sino de uno que trabajaba, precisamente, en M$. Vivir para ver. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Esa solucin es perfectamente vlida, pero creo que pierdes la funcionalidad del cargador LILO. Copia el contenido de lo siguiente y ajustalo a tus necesidades, lo importante es que la particin de instalacin del sector de arranque de LILO sea la que corresponde al File System root de linux, de sta forma puedes mantener los 2 cargadores (LILO y NT Loader) en 2 niveles y desde LILO o bien lanzar Debian o el NT Loader. boot=/dev/hda2 compact prompt install=/boot/boot.b map=/boot/map vga=normal # Imagen lanzada por defecto other=/dev/hda1 label="Windows NT 4.0" table=/dev/hda image=/vmlinuz label="Debian 2.0 Hamm" root=/dev/hda2 read-only Lo anterior me funciona perfectamente sobre un portatil, disco de 4 Gb y particiones de NT (NTFS) de 1.5 Gb y 512 Mb. Espero que les sea de ayuda. begin:vcard fn:Manuel Batista Dominguez n:Batista Dominguez;Manuel email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:928 29 64 50 x-mozilla-cpt:;0 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: NT y LINUX
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Manuel Batista Dominguez wrote: nbsp; Esa solucioacute;n es perfectamente vaacute;lida, pero creo que pierdes la funcionalidad del Bcargador LILO./B BRBnbsp;/B Copia el contenido de lo siguiente y ajustalo a tus necesidades, lo importante es que la particioacute;n de instalacioacute;n del sector de arranque de LILO sea la que corresponde al File System root de linux, de eacute;sta forma puedes mantener los 2 cargadores (LILO y NT Loader) en 2 niveles y desde LILO o bien lanzarnbsp; Debian o el NT Loader. Pboot=/dev/hda2 BRcompact BRprompt BRinstall=/boot/boot.b BRmap=/boot/map BRvga=normal BR# Imagen lanzada por defecto BRother=/dev/hda1 BRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; label=Windows NT 4.0 BRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; table=/dev/hda BRimage=/vmlinuz BRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; label=Debian 2.0 Hamm BRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; root=/dev/hda2 BRnbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp; read-only comment No mandes HTML a la lista, please, que queda feo. /comment Podrias explicar un poco mejor lo que dices aqui? Si leo bien, el bootloader del LILO lo pones en /dev/hda2. Por lo cual, al arrancar, el bootloader que se cargaria es el que sigue estando en el MBR, el de WinNT (suponiendo que NT fue instalado antes que Linux). O donde me equivoco...? Y si es asi, que ventaja hay en tener una seccion para WinNT en lilo.conf? Supongo que lo mejor seria poner LILO en el MBR (i.e., boot=/dev/hda), y tenerlo asi de master bootloader. Qué creeis? Pero, en ese caso, sabe alguien como guardar el MBR original (el bootloader de NT), por si interesa dejarlo como estaba en un futuro? JL = Jose L. Marín [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept of Maths [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AS, U.K. Phone: +44 131 451 3893 Fax: +44 131 451 3249 Former address: Dept. de Física de la Materia Condensada Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Zaragoza 50009 Zaragoza, SPAIN =
Re: NT y LINUX
Hola que tal. Veo que el tema se animo. Lo primero que yo intente fue instalar primero NT y despues LINUX pero al poner LILO en el MBR, NT ya no puede arrancar ya que necesita su propio MBR, es decir el boot loader de NT, me temo que NT usa el boot loader para algo o es una nueva conia de M$ para no facilitar la instalacion de otros sistemas.
Re: NT y LINUX
On mié, abr 07, 1999 at 11:23:30 +0100, Jose Marin wrote: Supongo que lo mejor seria poner LILO en el MBR (i.e., boot=/dev/hda), y Si tenerlo asi de master bootloader. Qué creeis? Pero, en ese caso, sabe alguien como guardar el MBR original (el bootloader de NT), por si interesa dejarlo como estaba en un futuro? Mete un disquete formateado y haz... 'dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/fd0/MBRwinNT bs=512 count=1' De esta forma si la pifias no tendrás por qué alarmarte, simplemente: arranca con el disco de arranque y reestablece la MBR de WinNT mediante: 'dd if=/dev/fd0/MBRwinNT of=/dev/hda bs=446 count=1' Saludos. -- Javier Viñuales Gutiérrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NT y LINUX
El Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:58:17PM +0200, Ramiro Alba dijo: José Enrique Álvarez Martín wrote: [Problemas de Arranque Linux+WinNT] Ya vieron los HOWTO relevantes. -- Ugo Enrico Albarello López de Mesa| POWERED BY | www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] | DEBIAN GNU/LINUX 2.0 | www.gnu.org - Always Free, Always Cool, Always Linux
Re: NT y LINUX
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 03:58:17PM +0200, Ramiro Alba wrote: Tenemos Windows NT 4.0 instalado en una partición del primer disco y en otra(s) particiones del mismo disco instalamos Debian y onfiguramos Lilo para que arranque de los 2 sistemas. El arranque de Linux ningún problema pero el de NT comienza bien hasta que aparece la pantallita azul y despues de unos 10 segundos falla estrepitosamente. Esto no ocurre si el disrectorio root de Linux esta en una particion de otro discos. Si no es el caso, me he visto obligado a poner el Lilo en disket para el arranque dual. Hasta donde he podido me mirado la documentación de Lilo a fondo, pero no he dado con la causa. ¿Alguien sabe que demonios pasa? Yo lo plantearía de otra manera, que es la que a mi me ha funcionado: instalas lilo en la partición que va contener a linux, siempre por debajo del cilindro 1024 y en disco master. Luego copias el sector de arranque de linux en un fichero, con dd if=/dev/hda2 of=/bootsect.lnx bs=521 count=1 (suponiendo que linux esté en hda2). Lo siguiente es copiar el archivo /bootsect.lnx a c: Si c: es una partición ntfs, tendrás que copiarlo primero en un disco. Entonces editas el archivo boot.ini, que es (hablo de memoria) hidden,read-only,system. Antes de editarlo tendrás que cambiarle los atributos, pero luego acuérdate de dejarlos como estaban. Como decía, editas el fichero y añades la línea c:\bootsect.lnx=Linux Con esto, serás capaz de arrancar linux desde el cargador de NT. Funciona perfectamente (doy fe); el único inconveniente es que cada vez que retocas el lilo, tienes que copiar el sector de arranque de nuevo. Todo esto viene mejor explicado en el howto Linux+NT+loader (creo que se llamaba así) y en el número 5 de Linux Actual. -- Un Saludo Han Solo The Rebel Alliance Conecto, luego existo. Desconecto, luego insisto. Soy usuario de infobirria+ P.D. La firma no es mía, sino de uno que trabajaba, precisamente, en M$. Vivir para ver.
NT y LINUX
Hola a todos. Instale Windows NT 4.0 Server en mi pc, en una particion ntfs. Mas tarde instale LINUX en otro disco duro, al instalar LILO, me machaco el MBR de NT pero lo peor es que no puedo arrancar NT desde LILO. Por favor, alguien me puede ayudar.
Re: NT y LINUX
José Enrique Álvarez Martín wrote: Hola a todos. Instale Windows NT 4.0 Server en mi pc, en una particion ntfs.Mas tarde instale LINUX en otro disco duro, al instalar LILO, me machaco el MBR de NT pero lo peor es que no puedo arrancar NT desde LILO. Por favor, alguien me puede ayudar. Si, a mi también me paso lo mismo y lo arrglé arrancando desde disket DOS y ejecutando fdisk /MBR (el disket de arranque DOS ha de contener fdisk). Al hilo de la pregunta plantearé otra: Tenemos Windows NT 4.0 instalado en una partición del primer disco y en otra(s) particiones del mismo disco instalamos Debian y onfiguramos Lilo para que arranque de los 2 sistemas. El arranque de Linux ningún problema pero el de NT comienza bien hasta que aparece la pantallita azul y despues de unos 10 segundos falla estrepitosamente. Esto no ocurre si el disrectorio root de Linux esta en una particion de otro discos. Si no es el caso, me he visto obligado a poner el Lilo en disket para el arranque dual. Hasta donde he podido me mirado la documentación de Lilo a fondo, pero no he dado con la causa. ¿Alguien sabe que demonios pasa? Un saludo a todos -- Ramiro Alba Laboratori de Termotecnia i Energetica Departament de Maquines i Motors Termics ETS d'Enginyers Industrials de Terrassa C/Colom 11 Tf: 34 - 93 739 82 43 Fax: 34 - 93 739 81 01 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NT y LINUX
Jos Enrique lvarez Martn wrote: Hola a todos. Instale Windows NT 4.0 Server en mi pc, en una particion ntfs. Mas tarde instale LINUX en otro disco duro, al instalar LILO, me machaco el MBR de NT pero lo peor es que no puedo arrancar NT desde LILO. Por favor, alguien me puede ayudar. Ver documentacion , por ejemplo en http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/mini/Linux+NT+Loader Antonio
TCO on the desktop, NT vs Linux
We all know that Linux saves mega$ in the server environment. However, my boss brought back the idea from a conference (EDUCAUSE) he attended last week that Linux costs 3 to 4 times as much as NT in time spent setting up and getting a desktop computer productive. I searched the web for info on desktop issues re: NT and Linux, but didn't find anything but server issues. Does anyone know of any good ammo/websites/etc that I could research? Thanks.
Re: TCO on the desktop, NT vs Linux
On http://www.varesearch.com/ there is a link to a Datapro study where some 800 peaple was asked if they was satified with different OS's with regard to e.g. TCO. Also the Swedish networking paper nätvärlden quotes an unamed Dataquest report. The headline is Windows NT the most expensive to administer. Their website (http://www.natvarlden.et.se) does not mention it but you might ask the article writer, mr. Fredrik Granlund ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). --- Karl Hammar Aspö Data [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lilla Aspö 2340 0173 140 57 S-742 94 Östhammar 070 511 97 84 Professionella Linuxlösningar --- On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Kent West wrote: We all know that Linux saves mega$ in the server environment. However, my boss brought back the idea from a conference (EDUCAUSE) he attended last week that Linux costs 3 to 4 times as much as NT in time spent setting up and getting a desktop computer productive. I searched the web for info on desktop issues re: NT and Linux, but didn't find anything but server issues. Does anyone know of any good ammo/websites/etc that I could research? Thanks. -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -rw-rw 1 karl mail62762 Dec 22 00:56 /var/spool/mail/karl
Montar disco de NT desde Linux
En el trabajo me he instalado una Debian (de forma semi ilegal) pero necesito montar discos de una maquina NT server 4.0. He probado con el smbmount pero supongo que por culpa de la encriptacion no funciona. Con el paquete Samba si me puedo conectar pero no puedo montar el disco He visto que existe un paquete llamado smbfsx pero es para kernels superiores al 2.1.70 (inestable) ¿Es esta la herramienta a utilizar? ¿puedo usar algun kernel estable? ¿lo tengo que recompilar? Muchisimas gracias por atenderme. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Jordi Román Mejiase-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Autònoma ObertaServei de InformàticaUniversitat Autónoma de Barcelona /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: Montar disco de NT desde Linux
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 10:15:06AM +, Jordi Roman Mejias wrote: En el trabajo me he instalado una Debian (de forma semi ilegal) pero necesito montar discos de una maquina NT server 4.0. He probado con el smbmount pero supongo que por culpa de la encriptacion no funciona. Con el paquete Samba si me puedo conectar pero no puedo montar el disco He visto que existe un paquete llamado smbfsx pero es para kernels superiores al 2.1.70 (inestable) ¿Es esta la herramienta a utilizar? ¿puedo usar algun kernel estable? ¿lo tengo que recompilar? Si no recuerdo mal, en non-us hay un samba con soporte para cifrado. (Si digo encriptación Santiago se va a mosquear). ;-) Saludos, -- Enrique Zanardi[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WIN NT and Linux
There seems to be a general consensus that if you have a dual NT/Linux machine you have to use the NT loader. However, I have a 95/NT/Linux machine and haven't had any problems booting any of them from lilo. Was I just lucky or what? In case this matters, the hds on the machine are hda 4.3G WD - 95 and NT split evenly hdb 6.0G Quantum - Slackware Linux with a 1 gig shared partition formatted as DOS --- The sum of the Universe is zero. D'jinnie/Jinn, encountered on IRC and select MU**. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
RE: WIN NT and Linux
-Original Message- From: Tom Consmith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 1998 6:34 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: WIN NT and Linux I am currently running WIN NT 4.0 (SP3) on my Pentium2. I have a 8 gig HD, of which 3 GB have been left unformatted so that I may install a version of Linux. However, at this point, I have not been able to find an FAQ detailing how to install with NT running. If anyone could please send me a file, link or help of that nature, I would greatly appreciate it. http://www.linux-howto.com/LDP/HOWTO/mini/Linux+NT-Loader.html Braden
Re: WIN NT and Linux
On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, D'jinnie wrote: There seems to be a general consensus that if you have a dual NT/Linux machine you have to use the NT loader. However, I have a 95/NT/Linux machine and haven't had any problems booting any of them from lilo. Was I just lucky or what? In case this matters, the hds on the machine are hda 4.3G WD - 95 and NT split evenly hdb 6.0G Quantum - Slackware Linux with a 1 gig shared partition formatted as DOS I had no problems dual-booting linux/NT from within lilo. (or within the NT loader) I physically removed my linux drive while installing NT (linux was already on /dev/hdb) just to be safe. NT did not restore the MBR as I had expected so I added a few lines in lilo.conf to chain into NT. I also added to NT's boot.ini. I know people who use System Commander successfully to go between the two also. -dave -- | oOOooO / [EMAIL PROTECTED] --|oOobodoO/ We're just two lost souls, swimming in a --| ooOoOo /fish bowl, year after year. Running over | II / the same old ground, what have we found, | II / The same old fears. Wish you were Here.
Re: WIN NT and Linux
On Sun, Sep 20, 1998 at 06:52:22PM -0500, D'jinnie wrote: There seems to be a general consensus that if you have a dual NT/Linux machine you have to use the NT loader. However, I have a 95/NT/Linux machine and haven't had any problems booting any of them from lilo. Was I just lucky or what? Sure you can use the NT loader -- I boot NT4, 95, DOS 6.22, Linux and FreeBSD directly from it. Just download BOOTPART (BOOTPA20.ZIP last I looked), it will set it up for you; runs under DOS. The NT loader will load LILO, which will load Linux. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
WIN NT and Linux
I am currently running WIN NT 4.0 (SP3) on my Pentium2. I have a 8 gig HD, of which 3 GB have been left unformatted so that I may install a version of Linux. However, at this point, I have not been able to find an FAQ detailing how to install with NT running. If anyone could please send me a file, link or help of that nature, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks Tom _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: WIN NT and Linux
You can't install LInux with NT (or any other OS for that matter) running . Since you already have saved a good amount of space, you're well ahead of the game. All you have to do is insert the linux boot floppy, reboot, and follow the directions. When you install LILO, be sure to NOT install LILO on the master boot record, only use the superblock of the linux partition. You'll probably want to make a boot floppy as well. There exists a HOWTO concerning putting Linux into NT's boot manager. Personally, I like LILO better, and use it for NT, 95, and of course Linux. Sean Tom Consmith wrote: I am currently running WIN NT 4.0 (SP3) on my Pentium2. I have a 8 gig HD, of which 3 GB have been left unformatted so that I may install a version of Linux. However, at this point, I have not been able to find an FAQ detailing how to install with NT running. If anyone could please send me a file, link or help of that nature, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks Tom _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: WIN NT and Linux
On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Tom Consmith wrote: - I am currently running WIN NT 4.0 (SP3) on my Pentium2. I have a 8 gig - HD, of which 3 GB have been left unformatted so that I may install a - version of Linux. However, at this point, I have not been able to find - an FAQ detailing how to install with NT running. If anyone could - please send me a file, link or help of that nature, I would greatly - appreciate it. - - Thanks - Tom - - _ - DO YOU YAHOO!? - Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - - -- - Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null - - http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/mini/Linux+NT-Loader.html This Howto helped me getting NT 4.0 and Debian 2.0 running on the same machine. During the install proccess most of the different flavors let you tell it which partitions of which drive to install on. Hope this helps. -Allan || | Allan K. Neal | Electronics and Computer Technology | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Utah State University | | http://cc.usu.edu/~slvkd/ | ASTE Network Administrator| || |The mind is like a parachute; it works much better when it's open. | ||
win95/NT vrs. Linux For profetional program development
we're now using a win 95 system in order to develop a comercial system (software and hardware) I am considering to try to move the system to a unix/linux base instead. So i was wondering what are the pro's and cons of such a switch. That includes: How dificult is it for a programer to make the switch to programing for X instead of win95. Also what software is there to develop programs (Compiler environments) and to develop man/machine interface. I'm looking for a c/c++ based system. There is no problem with purchasing commercial programs if they exist. I'm looking for something of the sort of Visual c++. any information is welcome. Thanx _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: win95/NT vrs. Linux For profetional program development
That includes: How dificult is it for a programer to make the switch to programing for X instead of win95. Well, programming for X is much more verstile then Win programming. The thing is that you have a choice in a GUI Toolkit. The oldest and most popular is Motif. It is not free and available from several vendors for ~$100 (e.g. http://www.metrolink.com) There is also a free Motif clone which is not quite ready for a prime time (http://www.lesstif.org) There are also several newer toolkits - Qt (which also has a Win port), GTK+, XForms, etc. And of course, there is Java (tm). Also what software is there to develop programs (Compiler environments) and to develop man/machine interface. I'm looking for a c/c++ based system. There is no problem with purchasing commercial programs if they exist. c/c++ compilers are free and good. (gcc/egcs) I'm looking for something of the sort of Visual c++. I remeber that I heard of several GUI builders for Linux, both free and commercial, but I don't use them so can't be precise here. For an example of the GUI in X/Motif anf GTK+, you may visit the page of WXftp, the application I wrote, at http://www.wxftp.seul.org Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +---+ | _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets| \()| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ | / \ \ +---+ -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
RE: NT and Linux
Thanks Bob McGowan for your very informative reply. I gather that 1. Software raid is OK if problem is I-O bound, i.e., CPU would normally be idle waiting for I-O. 2. If we have multiple subsystems, we increase the the I-O bandwidth, and now the CPU may not be keep up with the I-O. In general, increasing I-O turns I-O bound problem into CPU bound program. 3. Software raid 5 may be OK for workload with lots of reads, but run into trouble if workload does lots of writes. 4. Software raid 5 is more efficient for large files. Is the above more or less correct. King On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Bob McGowan wrote: On Thu, 28 May 1998, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra wrote: snipped The article from www.osnews.com did say that software raid takes up CPU cycles, but it did not say how much. It would seem that if the CPU must check for errors on each byte from disk and performance would take a big hit. Perhaps the kernel checks for errors only if it knows that a disk died, and normally there would not be a hit. Does anyone know about CPU hit of software raid. Why would anyone buy expensive raid hardware if software does the same without too much penalty? King Lee First, the CPU not only checks for errors on reading, it must also calculate the parity on writes. In RAID5, spanning 4 disks, for example, 1/4 of the storage is used to hold parity info. Data is written in stripes of some size, one stripe per disk, in a round robin sequence. One stripe will be parity. In the above 4 disk example, if a stripe were 16K in size, there would be 48K of data and 16K of parity. In RAID5, the parity stipe will rotate between disks, so no single disk is loaded with all the parity (this improves performance over RAID4(I believe) where all parity is on one disk). If a disk write is less than 48K, the system must read 48K from the disks, make the needed changes, recalculate parity and write the resulting 64K back to the disks. If the size is 48K, this read of data can be dispensed with. The system must then only calcualte the parity and then write the 64K. This means CPU cycles are needed for SW RAID. I do not know the impact in terms of actual numbers, but I can say the main issue is scalability. In SW RAID, the more RAID subsystems created, the greater the impact on CPU performance. In HW RAID, there is no additional impact. So even if SW RAID for a single RAID5 subsystem matched HW RAID for the same config, there will certainly come a breakeven point, where additional capacity causes CPU performance degradation in the SW RAID setup. --- Bob McGowan i'm: bob dot mcgowan at artecon dot com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NT and Linux
Hi, King, my comments follow your questions, below. I hope this helps. Bob King Lee asks: Thanks Bob McGowan for your very informative reply. I gather that 1. Software raid is OK if problem is I-O bound, i.e., CPU would normally be idle waiting for I-O. I would agree with this analysis. If the CPU is doing nothing, it might as well be calculating parity for RAID. :-) 2. If we have multiple subsystems, we increase the the I-O bandwidth, and now the CPU may not be keep up with the I-O. In general, increasing I-O turns I-O bound problem into CPU bound program. I would also expect this to be true, though I have no evidence to support the idea. 3. Software raid 5 may be OK for workload with lots of reads, but run into trouble if workload does lots of writes. Not necessarily. Remember, when reading the data, you still have to read a stripe from all the disks and verify the parity, so there is still some overhead. Also, if there are lots of writes, there may be a higher chance of ordering the I/O requests to take advantage of writing a full set of stripes, reducing the frequency of the read/modify/write cycle, which will reduce I/O load. 4. Software raid 5 is more efficient for large files. Generally, the answer to this is: it depends ;-) Are you talking reads and/or writes. What combination? How random? Etc. Also, this question (and the third, to some extent) are getting away from the original question comparing SW and HW based RAID technnology and are getting into the more specific issues of RAID efficiencies, which DO NOT depend on whether the RAID is SW or HW. Generally, in RAID5, writes will always be more expensive than a regular disk. If you have a read/modify/parity calcualtion/write scenario, it is worse, but even the data collection/parity calculation/write sequence takes more time than a pure write. The efficiency of RAID5 is in its read characteristics, for random access. Large numbers of random read requests will distribute across multiple spindles, improving I/O due to redcution of seek delays and an overall reduction of read requests PER SPINDLE. There will also be less wait time for unrelated requests. This implies that the more disks you can put in the array, the better the performance. And this may be where SW RAID could be better than HW RAID, since SW based arrays can span multiple controllers. The controllers also do not need to be the same interface type either. You can mix IDE, SCSI, etc. HW RAID systems generally have some limits on the number of disks you can have, based on the number of internal buses and bus width (ie a two internal narrow SCSI channel system would be limited to a maximum of 14 hard disks). If you are concerned about write performance more than read performance, you might want to consider using a mirror set of some sort (RAID1 and RAID6 [AKA RAID10]). Since there is no parity calculation, write performance is very close to a standard disk's. The disadvanage is that 50% of the capacity is lost. Is the above more or less correct. King On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Bob McGowan wrote: On Thu, 28 May 1998, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra wrote: snipped The article from www.osnews.com did say that software raid takes up CPU cycles, but it did not say how much. It would seem that if the CPU must check for errors on each byte from disk and performance would take a big hit. Perhaps the kernel checks for errors only if it knows that a disk died, and normally there would not be a hit. Does anyone know about CPU hit of software raid. Why would anyone buy expensive raid hardware if software does the same without too much penalty? King Lee First, the CPU not only checks for errors on reading, it must also calculate the parity on writes. In RAID5, spanning 4 disks, for example, 1/4 of the storage is used to hold parity info. Data is written in stripes of some size, one stripe per disk, in a round robin sequence. One stripe will be parity. In the above 4 disk example, if a stripe were 16K in size, there would be 48K of data and 16K of parity. In RAID5, the parity stipe will rotate between disks, so no single disk is loaded with all the parity (this improves performance over RAID4(I believe) where all parity is on one disk). If a disk write is less than 48K, the system must read 48K from the disks, make the needed changes, recalculate parity and write the resulting 64K back to the disks. If the size is 48K, this read of data can be dispensed with. The system must then only calcualte the parity and then write the 64K. This means CPU cycles are needed for SW RAID. I do not know the impact in terms of actual numbers, but I can say the main issue is scalability. In SW RAID, the more RAID subsystems created, the greater the impact on CPU performance.
Re: NT and Linux
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Michele Comitini wrote: One great advantage is that you can combine any kind of partitions form different devices (even a combination of partitions from a mix of IDE or SCISI hard-disks!) and have different personalities (i.e. RAID-5 for filesystem partitions, RAID-0 for swap partitions) on partitions of the same hard-disk. Note that you don't need RAID0 to do striping on swap partitions. You can assign each swap partition a priority. If all have the same priority, the kernel (versions 1.3.6 and higher) will automatically use something like striping on them. For more info, see 'man 8 swapon' and 'man 2 swapon' for more info. Remco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NT and Linux
-Original Message- From: King Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 11:29 PM To: Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra Cc: recipient list not shown; @[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NT and Linux On Thu, 28 May 1998, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra wrote: King Lee wrote: 1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge about software raid. How good is it? 2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5 snipped The article from www.osnews.com did say that software raid takes up CPU cycles, but it did not say how much. It would seem that if the CPU must check for errors on each byte from disk and performance would take a big hit. Perhaps the kernel checks for errors only if it knows that a disk died, and normally there would not be a hit. Does anyone know about CPU hit of software raid. Why would anyone buy expensive raid hardware if software does the same without too much penalty? King Lee First, the CPU not only checks for errors on reading, it must also calculate the parity on writes. In RAID5, spanning 4 disks, for example, 1/4 of the storage is used to hold parity info. Data is written in stripes of some size, one stripe per disk, in a round robin sequence. One stripe will be parity. In the above 4 disk example, if a stripe were 16K in size, there would be 48K of data and 16K of parity. In RAID5, the parity stipe will rotate between disks, so no single disk is loaded with all the parity (this improves performance over RAID4(I believe) where all parity is on one disk). If a disk write is less than 48K, the system must read 48K from the disks, make the needed changes, recalculate parity and write the resulting 64K back to the disks. If the size is 48K, this read of data can be dispensed with. The system must then only calcualte the parity and then write the 64K. This means CPU cycles are needed for SW RAID. I do not know the impact in terms of actual numbers, but I can say the main issue is scalability. In SW RAID, the more RAID subsystems created, the greater the impact on CPU performance. In HW RAID, there is no additional impact. So even if SW RAID for a single RAID5 subsystem matched HW RAID for the same config, there will certainly come a breakeven point, where additional capacity causes CPU performance degradation in the SW RAID setup. --- Bob McGowan i'm: bob dot mcgowan at artecon dot com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NT and Linux
On Thu, 28 May 1998, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra wrote: King Lee wrote: 1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge about software raid. How good is it? 2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5 Just (re)found it! http://www.osnews.com./features/04.98/raid.html Very good reading indeed! Enjoy and tell us what has come of it! Thanks for info. Also http://www.linas.org/linux/raid.html had some very good info. I was surprised to learn that the 2.2 kernel supports software raid and that the software raid was as fast as hardware raid 5. Raid 5 does error correction and even if one of the disks die data can be recovered and the system continue. The article from www.osnews.com did say that software raid takes up CPU cycles, but it did not say how much. It would seem that if the CPU must check for errors on each byte from disk and performance would take a big hit. Perhaps the kernel checks for errors only if it knows that a disk died, and normally there would not be a hit. Does anyone know about CPU hit of software raid. Why would anyone buy expensive raid hardware if software does the same without too much penalty? King Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NT and Linux
Hello! I was surprised to learn that the 2.2 kernel supports software raid and that the software raid was as fast as hardware raid 5. Raid 5 does error correction and even if one of the disks die data can be recovered and the system continue. The article from www.osnews.com did say that software raid takes up CPU cycles, but it did not say how much. It would seem that if the CPU must check for errors on each byte from disk and performance would take a big hit. Perhaps the kernel checks for errors only if it knows that a disk died, and normally there would not be a hit. Does anyone know about CPU hit of software raid. Why would anyone buy expensive raid hardware if software does the same without too much penalty? King Lee Well as a matter of fact I realized a Debian system with the software RAID-5 almost one year ago and it had good performance. Anyway I have never done any serious performance testing on it. The big problem is having the whole filesystem under RAID-5 even the root filesystem, this was solved using the initrd ramdisk to activate the RAID-5 personality on the partitions selected. This was probably the biggest problem with the linux software RAID. One great advantage is that you can combine any kind of partitions form different devices (even a combination of partitions from a mix of IDE or SCISI hard-disks!) and have different personalities (i.e. RAID-5 for filesystem partitions, RAID-0 for swap partitions) on partitions of the same hard-disk. I do not think you can do the same with a RAID-5 capable controller. After all it is probably cheaper and more effective to buy a dual (or quad) CPU motherboard instead of buying an expensive controller, but you have to do much more work on your side. Best Regards, Michele Comitini -- E-Mail: Michele Comitini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 29-May-98 Time: 10:41:23 This message was sent by XFMail -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NT and Linux
-Original Message- From: King Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:29 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: NT and Linux Hello, I got into a discussion with a system administrator of a website. The system administrator wishes to use NT because it supports software raid 5 (raid without a special controller). I thought if it works, there would be a terrible performance degradation. The system administrator said only if a disk goes down would there be a performance hit. Does anyone here know anything about The questions I have are 1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge about software raid. How good is it? 2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5 I think this guy is looking for an excuse not to use Linux. King Lee 1. I'm currently got a bundle of Alpha-Servers running NT 4.0. All but one of them uses hardware raid 5 (Controlled by an HSZ40 in a DEC storage works cab.) It is DEFINATELY faster than the one which has NT controlled RAID 5. Hardware controlled software controlled sets are both same sizes on each server. This difference is phenomenal. Aside from mere disk access - you should see how much CPU time is used keeping the RAID set working on the software controlled one.. I'll never setup software RAID again. 2. If Linux can see SCSI disks (which it can) it's all just a matter of plugging your SCSI cable into a hardware RAID box (such as the Digital Storage Works cabinets). The hardware controller takes care of everything. Linux will just see it as one huge disk. You will however need to spend an extra half-an-hour setting up the controller (It'll be done through a dumb terminal - and it's dead easy). Robbie e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NT and Linux
King Lee wrote: 1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge about software raid. How good is it? 2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5 Just (re)found it! http://www.osnews.com./features/04.98/raid.html Very good reading indeed! Enjoy and tell us what has come of it! -- Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra http://www.lge.com.br./ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NT and Linux
Hello, I got into a discussion with a system administrator of a website. The system administrator wishes to use NT because it supports software raid 5 (raid without a special controller). I thought if it works, there would be a terrible performance degradation. The system administrator said only if a disk goes down would there be a performance hit. Does anyone here know anything about The questions I have are 1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge about software raid. How good is it? 2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5 I think this guy is looking for an excuse not to use Linux. King Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NT and Linux
King Lee wrote: 1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge about software raid. How good is it? Know nothing about NT. If you look for information on Linux RAID (it's in the Internet, I've read it, can't remember where), it's said that Linux s/w RAID was in fact proved to be faster than the h/w products. 2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5 Yes! I think this guy is looking for an excuse not to use Linux. Do not be hard on him. I was avoiding Unix too, until I experienced NT's failures... -- Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corcete Dutra http://www.lge.com.br./ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.terravista.pt./Enseada/1989/ BRASIL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NT and Linux
-Original Message- From: King Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 12:29 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Cc: recipient list not shown; @[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NT and Linux Hello, I got into a discussion with a system administrator of a website. The system administrator wishes to use NT because it supports software raid 5 (raid without a special controller). I thought if it works, there would be a terrible performance degradation. The system administrator said only if a disk goes down would there be a performance hit. There will be some performance loss, since the system CPU will need to handle the RAID algorithm. Software RAID also means buying the SW to support it or having it come with the system (as it does with NT). It is still necessary to purchase the disk farm and perhaps more HBA's to distribute the load and improve redundancy. There are no restrictions that I know of about the interface or disk types used. One issue is how much I/O is written at a time and the size of the stripes of data written to each disk. As an example a 5 disk array using a stripe size of 16K will have a big performance hit (whether implemented in SW or HW) if a write of less than 4*16K (64K) is made. The RAID system must then read the unchanged data from the disks, make the needed changes, calculate the new parity and write the whole thing back. This takes CPU cycles and will affect system performance at some load levels. And even if the writes are full stripes, it still needs to calculate the parity and write the stripes to disk. Another issue is the type of I/O being done (random vs. sequential) but this impacts I/O performance in either SW or HW RAID. The more random the I/O, the beter the chances are that several writes (or reads) will land on different disks in the array, reducing seek time issues. I/O performance will also improve as more threads are run. Does anyone here know anything about The questions I have are 1. Has anyone here had any experience or knowledge about software raid. How good is it? I have used it, but not recently and not in a production environment. It does/did work. (I'm a test engineer so I beat the hell out of it. I had no failures or problems.) 2. Does Linux support hardware raid 5 Basically, any system can support hardware RAID at any level, since the RAID functions are handled by the RAID controller. But then there needs to be some way to configure the RAID subsystem. This can be done by either a serial interface to the RAID subsystem controller, using a terminal emulator, or by special software using a SCSI pass through to send information to the controller over the SCSI bus. This assumes a SCSI subsystem of course. The subsystem manufacturers are building high performance systems, so the dollar outlay can be large (4 or 9 GB 7200 RPM Ultra SCSI disks in a cabinet running Ultra SCSI to the host, supporting a large number of drives (7 or more)). The serial method is fast and easy but does not scale well to large numbers of systems, where the SCSI base scales nicely but is more difficult to implement well. I think this guy is looking for an excuse not to use Linux. King Lee -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Hi, I'm currently connecting to the internet from the Debian/Linux box. I'd like to know how would I go about access the internet from other PCs (windows/nt) which are on the same network as my Linux box. Thanks! -- Timothy C. Phan Intelligence Quest Research, INC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
I'm currently connecting to the internet from the Debian/Linux box. I'd like to know how would I go about access the internet from other PCs (windows/nt) which are on the same network as my Linux box. You should probably mention whether you are accessing the internet through PPP dialup or through Ethernet. Once you tell us, we can help you a lot more readily. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
I'm currently connecting to the internet from the Debian/Linux box. I'd like to know how would I go about access the internet from other PCs (windows/nt) which are on the same network as my Linux box. The keyword you are looking for is IP Masquerading Red the HOWTO and have fun. Works perfectly here. Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +---+ | _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets| \()| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ | / \ \ +---+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
-Original Message- From: iquest [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian User debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 7:49 Subject: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux Hi, I'm currently connecting to the internet from the Debian/Linux box. I'd like to know how would I go about access the internet from other PCs (windows/nt) which are on the same network as my Linux box. There are two main ways (that I am aware of anyway) 1) If you have static IP address from your ISP for all of the machines on your network. Recompile your kernel for ip forwarding and set the gateway of your other pc's to the ip address of your linux box. 2) If you don't have static IP address. Read the IP-Masquerade HOWTO (/usr/doc/HOWTO/mini - if you have installed them) which will explain it a lot better than I can :) Regards, Paul. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Hi, I'm connecting to internet through PPP dialup. I've recompiled the kernel with all IP-Masquerade and configured one of my NT4.0 box as described in the IP-Masquerade Mini-HOWTO and it did not work. My Linux box has the IP address: 192.168.188.2 My NT4.0 has IP address: 192.168.188.4 I can ping/ftp between machines without any problem. Here is an ls /proc/net on my linux box -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 arp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:43 dev -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 igmp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_autofw -rw-r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_forward -rw-r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_input -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_masq_app -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_masquerade -rw-r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_output -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 raw -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 route -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 rt_cache -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 snmp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 sockstat -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 tcp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 udp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 unix -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 wireless My /etc/modules ntfs tulip ip_masq_ftp ip_masq_raudio ip_masq_irc ip_masq_cuseeme ip_masq_vdolive ip_masq_quake Ben Pfaff wrote: I'm currently connecting to the internet from the Debian/Linux box. I'd like to know how would I go about access the internet from other PCs (windows/nt) which are on the same network as my Linux box. You should probably mention whether you are accessing the internet through PPP dialup or through Ethernet. Once you tell us, we can help you a lot more readily. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Timothy C. Phan Intelligence Quest Research, INC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
-Original Message- From: iquest [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Debian User debian-user@lists.debian.org Date: Tuesday, 5 May 1998 10:09 Subject: Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux Hi, I'm connecting to internet through PPP dialup. I've recompiled the kernel with all IP-Masquerade and configured one of my NT4.0 box as described in the IP-Masquerade Mini-HOWTO and it did not work. My Linux box has the IP address: 192.168.188.2 My NT4.0 has IP address: 192.168.188.4 I can ping/ftp between machines without any problem. Have you : 1) entered the ipfwadm commands as described in the mini-howto? 2) done a : /sbin/modprobe -a /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_ftp etc? Regards, Paul. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Hi, I'm connecting to internet through PPP dialup. I've recompiled the kernel with all IP-Masquerade and configured one of my NT4.0 box as described in the IP-Masquerade Mini-HOWTO and it did not work. My Linux box has the IP address: 192.168.188.2 My NT4.0 has IP address: 192.168.188.4 I can ping/ftp between machines without any problem. do you have a nameserver on your linux box (or is one configured in NT either your provider DNS server or one you have) ??? Alain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Hi, I did this thing with one linux box and two win95 boxes and ISDN-dialup. winNT/95: Add the IP of the linux-box as Gateway. Nameserver etc. have to be entered, too. linux : routing should be ok without doing anything. kernel should be compiled with ip_forward enabled. I think, you have a simple ISP-account. In this case add to /etc/init.d/network: ipfwadm -F -p deny ipfwadm -F -a m -S 192.168.2.0/24 -D 0.0.0.0/0. 192.168.2.0 is my local network. The rest is generic. hope it helps, cu florian attenberger On Mon, 4 May 1998, iquest wrote: Hi, I'm currently connecting to the internet from the Debian/Linux box. I'd like to know how would I go about access the internet from other PCs (windows/nt) which are on the same network as my Linux box. Thanks! -- Timothy C. Phan Intelligence Quest Research, INC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Hi All, I'm jumping ahead of myself. I thought the ipfwadm command was just some monitoring utilitiy and I was certainly wrong. After entering all the ipfwadm commands, everything works as expected. I, however, still have some question on where to put these ipfwadm commands so when I reboot the system, these commands will be automatically executed. Thank. Paul Guidera wrote: Have you : 1) entered the ipfwadm commands as described in the mini-howto? 2) done a : /sbin/modprobe -a /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_ftp etc? Regards, Paul. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Timothy C. Phan Intelligence Quest Research, INC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
The file '/etc/init.d/netbase' has the commands for setting up you IP-Masquerading. The defaults that I have seen are always to deny. I have looked and not found any reference to a configuration tool so I just added the necessary commands directly to the file. In any event, check what you currently permit with 'ipfwadm -l -F' (also -I and -O) On Mon, May 04, 1998 at 11:46:29PM +, iquest wrote: Hi, I'm connecting to internet through PPP dialup. I've recompiled the kernel with all IP-Masquerade and configured one of my NT4.0 box as described in the IP-Masquerade Mini-HOWTO and it did not work. My Linux box has the IP address: 192.168.188.2 My NT4.0 has IP address: 192.168.188.4 I can ping/ftp between machines without any problem. Here is an ls /proc/net on my linux box -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 arp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:43 dev -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 igmp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_autofw -rw-r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_forward -rw-r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_input -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_masq_app -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_masquerade -rw-r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 ip_output -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 raw -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 route -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 rt_cache -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 snmp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 sockstat -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 tcp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 udp -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 unix -r--r--r-- 1 root root0 May 4 23:21 wireless My /etc/modules ntfs tulip ip_masq_ftp ip_masq_raudio ip_masq_irc ip_masq_cuseeme ip_masq_vdolive ip_masq_quake Ben Pfaff wrote: I'm currently connecting to the internet from the Debian/Linux box. I'd like to know how would I go about access the internet from other PCs (windows/nt) which are on the same network as my Linux box. You should probably mention whether you are accessing the internet through PPP dialup or through Ethernet. Once you tell us, we can help you a lot more readily. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Timothy C. Phan Intelligence Quest Research, INC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- best, -bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] from a 1996 Micro$loth ad campaign: The less you know about computers the more you want Micro$oft! See! They do get some things right! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Bill Leach wrote: The file '/etc/init.d/netbase' has the commands for setting up you IP-Masquerading. The defaults that I have seen are always to deny. I have looked and not found any reference to a configuration tool so I just added the necessary commands directly to the file. admin/dotfile-ipfwadm_0.23b3-4.deb It's in hamm but it runs OK on bo. -- ...RickM... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 09:44:56AM -0400, Bill Leach wrote: The file '/etc/init.d/netbase' has the commands for setting up you IP-Masquerading. The defaults that I have seen are always to deny. ^^^ No, they don't. There are some firewall setup commands only: # deny incoming packets pretending to be from 127.0.0.1 ipfwadm -I -d deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth0 -D 0/0 2/dev/null || true ipfwadm -I -d deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth1 -D 0/0 2/dev/null || true ipfwadm -I -i deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth0 -D 0/0 /dev/null ipfwadm -I -i deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth1 -D 0/0 /dev/null There are only these commands, and a few others, to prevent IP spoofing. This seems to be a common misconception. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Paul, I created a shell script and put it in the /etc/rc.boot directory. Works for me. Steve Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] iquest wrote: Hi All, I'm jumping ahead of myself. I thought the ipfwadm command was just some monitoring utilitiy and I was certainly wrong. After entering all the ipfwadm commands, everything works as expected. I, however, still have some question on where to put these ipfwadm commands so when I reboot the system, these commands will be automatically executed. Thank. Paul Guidera wrote: Have you : 1) entered the ipfwadm commands as described in the mini-howto? 2) done a : /sbin/modprobe -a /sbin/modprobe ip_masq_ftp etc? Regards, Paul. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Timothy C. Phan Intelligence Quest Research, INC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Correction... I have not found any reference to a configuration tool that would work on my system! I did try 'dotfile ipfwadm' a couple of time but it did not work for me and I have not yet attempted to find out why not. On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 08:01:00AM -0600, Rick Macdonald wrote: Bill Leach wrote: The file '/etc/init.d/netbase' has the commands for setting up you IP-Masquerading. The defaults that I have seen are always to deny. I have looked and not found any reference to a configuration tool so I just added the necessary commands directly to the file. admin/dotfile-ipfwadm_0.23b3-4.deb It's in hamm but it runs OK on bo. -- ...RickM... -- best, -bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] from a 1996 Micro$loth ad campaign: The less you know about computers the more you want Micro$oft! See! They do get some things right! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet from Windows/NT thru Linux
Hummm, not sure what to say. Yes, I knew that these were to prevent spoofing and since I could not find any other place where ipfwadm commands were issued, the defaults for ipfwadm appeared to be 'deny' (which of course makes sense). It further seemd to me that /etc/netbase is the logical location for the additional rules. If not, I'd rather like to know why not as well as where they should be placed. On Wed, May 06, 1998 at 12:11:14AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 09:44:56AM -0400, Bill Leach wrote: The file '/etc/init.d/netbase' has the commands for setting up you IP-Masquerading. The defaults that I have seen are always to deny. ^^^ No, they don't. There are some firewall setup commands only: # deny incoming packets pretending to be from 127.0.0.1 ipfwadm -I -d deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth0 -D 0/0 2/dev/null || true ipfwadm -I -d deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth1 -D 0/0 2/dev/null || true ipfwadm -I -i deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth0 -D 0/0 /dev/null ipfwadm -I -i deny -o -P all -S 127.0.0.0/8 -W eth1 -D 0/0 /dev/null There are only these commands, and a few others, to prevent IP spoofing. This seems to be a common misconception. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org -- best, -bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] from a 1996 Micro$loth ad campaign: The less you know about computers the more you want Micro$oft! See! They do get some things right! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Help installing NT and Linux
There are some pecularities with regard to MS OS's that you need to watch out for. They require that their boot partition be marked active or bootable. You can do that with Linux's fdisk. Linux doesn't care whether its partition is marked active or not. (If you run multiple independent MS OS's , i.e. not a dual boot setup through the boot sector loader, you'll want to use a boot manager that will mark the MS partition active before loading the boot sector for that OS. Recent versions of LILO won't do this (at least the last time I checked it wouldn't), so you'll need a boot manager. (I use OSBS and like it.) Again this is only true if you are running multiple independent MS OS's you don't need this if you only have NT and Linux or if you are allowing the MS boot sector loader to handle dual booting.) I don't believe your setup will work. I'm pretty sure NT boot partition has to be on a primary partition on the first drive. This partition has to be either FAT16 or NTFS ans has to be large enough to hold NTLDR and boot.ini and ???. The partition holding the WINNT directory can be on any disk in either a primary or extended partition. (Note: Under NT terminology the boot partition is the one containing the WINNT directory, the system partition is the one containing NTLDR. This is counterintuitive and against convention. Most people refer to the partition containing the boot sector loader as the boot partition and the root or system partition as the one containing the OS. I'm using conventional terminology and not NT terminology.) You have two choices I believe: 1) Let the NT drive be the master drive. You'll have to use the debian installation disk to mount the Linux root partition from the second drive and change the /etc/fstab file. Also create a new boot floppy from the debian installation menu and after rebooting with it, make the necessary changes to the LILO configuration. You'll need to install LILO as the master boot record on the first disk, in order to boot to either NT or Linux. (There is also a program called bootpart that will allow you to boot Linux from the NTLDR menu. Then you would not need to install LILO as the MBR.) 2) Let the Linux drive be the master and find a way to create a small FAT16 or NTFS primary partition on the Linux drive. You'll need to set this up as NT's boot partition. Again you can use LILO as the MBR to boot between Linux and NT. (You may need to install LILO as the MBR after installing NT. I've had NT complain about the MBR if it isn't one that comes with one of the MS OS's.) Good luck, Tony Richardson -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Help installing NT and Linux
I just got a new drive and I want to put a few more Operating Systems on it. Even thought NT is a pain to use I would like to have it around just to run a few apps. But I am having some problems getting it to install. Here is the situation: I have two 4.3 gig UltraATA Quantum Fireballs. The primary master has only Linux partitions on it (containing Debian 2.0) I would like to install NT on the first partition of the Primary slave drive. Here is where the problems come in. With that setup NT would not install. It complained because there was no NT compatible partition on the primary master. I am assuming it wanted to install thinks like the boot.ini and ntldr on the first partition of the primary master. Since that partition is Linux, NT can't touch it. So what I did was make the drive which NT needs to go on, the primary master. I installed NT and it works fine, if that drive is the master. I need the Linux drive to be the master because I don't want to reinstall Linux or let NT win this battle :) Is there a way for me to boot NT using lilo? Will my little drive swap trick work with some more playing? I have tired booting NT with Lilo and it doesn't want to work. Here is the NT part of my lilo.conf: other=/dev/hdb1 label=winnt table=/dev/hdb Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Also please reply directly to me, as it can be easy to miss replies in all the list traffic. --Travis It's backup day today so I'm pissed off. Being the BOFH, however, does have it's advantages. I reassign null to be the tape device - it's so much more economical on my time as I don't have to keep getting up to change tapes every 5 minutes. And it speeds up backups too, so it can't be all bad can it? Of course not. -The Bastard Operator From Hell. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Help installing NT and Linux
So what I did was make the drive which NT needs to go on, the primary master. I installed NT and it works fine, if that drive is the master. I need the Linux drive to be the master because I don't want to reinstall Linux or let NT win this battle :) I don't know about loosing battles but why can't you keep Linux on the slave drive? You wouldn't have to reinstall it. Just edit /etc/fstab and change /dev/hda on /dev/hdb. You can install Lilo on the root partition (with just one option- linux) and follow the instructions in NT+Linux HOWTO how to make NT boot loader to boot linux. You may even make it the default OS to boot. I have a similar setup with no problems. Alex Y. -- _ _( )_ ( (o___ +---+ | _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets| \()| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ | / \ \ +---+ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: NT vs. Linux: is zero-administration a reality? (was: Question.)
Jens B. Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] NT make simple things simpler. In the process, by cramming everything into a neat little GUI it makes complex things difficult or impossible. Amen, brother! Truer words were never spoken. Well, maybe now and then, but not often. :) -- Edgar Whipple Have clue, will travel. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Budgies?! We doan need no stinkin *budgies*!! Microsoft is not where I want to go today. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
NT vs. Linux: is zero-administration a reality? (was: Question.)
Timothy Hospedales wrote: Does anyone know if there have been any studies on the cost effectiveness of networks based on linux vs networks based on NT? While linux seems to be cheaper, where I live technical expertise is in _very_ short supply and so linux would probably be alot more expensive to admister.? Oh yes, you seek after Microsoft's Holy Grail: zero administration. Guess what: it's not reality. Ever talk to a mathemetician about complexity? There are some problems which just can't be simplified. M$ gives you this GUI veneer over everything but it doesn't solve anything. Consider SQL Server. You can install the thing a create a single database in a jiffy but when it comes to performance tuning, replication, managing groups, backups, etc. you just have to know what your doing. Several months ago I needed to change the network address our office was using. Someone decided that though I could run a DHCP server on the Linux box we already use we should run an NT 4.0 Server for the job. In order to change the base network address I had to edit each entry and copy/paste the IP and MAC addresses into Notepad, then delete the scope, create a new one, and then re-enter each IP/MAC copying it to a newly created entry. If this had been Linux I could have opened the file and done a quick search/replace and been done in one minute. Sure the DHCP Manager window looks cool with it's slick tree-view. These are two examples but I could go on and on because my job requires that I write software (and do administration) in NT. NT make simple things simpler. In the process, by cramming everything into a neat little GUI it makes complex things difficult or impossible. For these reasons, NT is a breakthrough for small offices or workgroups who want to set up a small network and provide File, Print, small database, DHCP, and dial-in. For Fortune 500 companies who move to it because they think they can break free of dependence on highly paid computer experts who are extremely difficult to replace, they are just fooling themselves. I can't blame them for wanting a magic bullet but in this case as in most where a decision is made by someone without the knowledge and experience required, they're just shooting themselves in the foot. -- Jens B. Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
NT and Linux
[cc'd to debian-user since this info may help someone else.] Joe Russack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I'll be running NT in a few weeks, when the full release comes out. If you feel like typing up the info, that might be nice, but it's not critical yet...) I'll save you a few days of aggravation. If you're in the Silicon Valley area sometime you can buy me a beer ;-). Under no circumstances run NT's disk administrator to format partitions. It asks if it can write a signature which will cause absolutely no harm. When it did this, it hosed the partition table and neither NT nor Linux booted afterwards. Therefore, you'll probably be limited to one FAT NT partition unless NT 4.0 fixed these things. Also remember that even if you do get the Disk Administrator to work, you'll want at least one small FAT partition to use as a staging area for exchanging files between Linux and NT. If I read my notes right, the following is a fine distillation of many days and nights of pulling out my hair to get things working: 1. Install Linux (hold off on installing everything until you win the Linux/NT battle). Do all your disk partitioning in Linux, including your NT partition (make it FAT). I was not successful at making more than one NT partition. I also made it the first partition, but I don't know if that is essential or not. 2. Add the linear flag to /etc/lilo.conf, change boot=/dev/sda (I was not successful at installing LILO on the Linux partition--/dev/sda3 in my case) and run lilo. I may have had to use ignore-table along the way. See also fix-table. The LILO HOWTO is your friend. You'll have to use the editor ae. You'll live. 3. Save the MBR with this: dd if=/dev/sda of=/floppy/MBR bs=512 count=1 Use a floppy. Trust me. Also do this each time you change the disk partition table. 4. Install NT, part 1. When it goes to reboot halfway through the process you'll boot into Linux. 5. Add NT stanza to /etc/lilo.conf, e.g.: other=/dev/sda1 label=NT table=/dev/sda and run lilo. 6. Reboot, select NT from LILO, and finish NT install. You'll need the Boot Disk XU, HP Vectra AIC 7880 Driver A.01.02 floppy to install the ethernet drivers and the XU/VT Drivers and Documentation CD (directory video/disk4 if a recall correctly) to install the video drivers for the Matrox MGA Millennium. 7. Back to Linux, run fdisk and ensure you don't get partition doesn't end on cylinder boundary on your Linux partitions. You'll still have this error on the NT partition though, but this seems to be OK. /dev/sda111 322 3293016 DOS 16-bit =32M Partition 1 does not end on cylinder boundary: phys=(321, 39, 9) should be (321, 63, 32) Cfdisk reports strangeness, but it seems OK: Unusable 0.04* /dev/sda1 PrimaryDOS 16-bit =32Mb 321.59* Unusable 0.39* If you do get the cylinder boundary warning, you'll need that MBR you saved previously. Clear and restore the MBR (but not the signature) with: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=512 count=1 dd if=/floppy/MBR of=/dev/sda bs=510 count=1 8. Install the rest of Linux. Easy, huh? If you have problems trying to get NT to write the MBR instead of LILO, you may have to resort to the following to clear the MBR first: a) dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=446 count=1 (in Linux) or perform a low-level format with the SCSI utilities. I've heard that a low-level format of an IDE disk is fatal, so don't do it. b) fdisk /mbr (you've obviously already created a DOS boot disk that contains fdisk). c) delete NT partition and create it again in NT install. d) continue with NT install. Other details: Debian Linux 1.1, Linux 2.0.0, HP Vectra XU 6/150, Adaptec AIC 7880 Ultra (BIOS 1.2S-HP), Quantum Fireball 1080S, Phoenix compatibility BIOS GG.06.02. NT 3.5.1. Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph: +1-415-854-1857 fax: +1-415-854-3195 Say it with MIME. Maintainer of comp.mail.mh and news.software.nn FAQs. If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
