Re: [expert] Mouse locks in KDE & Gnome

[lorne]

On Monday 01 September 2003 01:17 pm, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 11:47, Niclas Jacobsson wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I am co-using mouse and monitor with an MS XP Home Client through one
> > of those mechanical switchboxes.  XPH manages to "loose" mouse and get
> > it back working after switching, but Mandrake is loosing contact with
> > the mouse until I log out from session then it comes alive again.
> > Anybody encountered this before?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Niclas
>
> Yes a number of people have.  Mine did this as well, the quick
> workaround is to do ctrl-alt-f1 and then switch when leaving Linux.
> Then ctrl-alt-f7 when you come back to it.  Problem is in the way the
> mechanical ones work (which is why XP has trouble as well) restarting
> console mouse (service gpm ) if installed will also get your mouse back.
>
> James

For what it is worth... I had an old Belkin KVM switch. Everytime I switched 
back to Linux, my mouse died. I ended up kill Xwindows and going back. I got 
tired of it. Quite by accident I have found that the linksys 4 port little 
KVM works like a dream. NO more problems at all. 

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Mouse locks in KDE & Gnome

[Lee Wiggers]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:01:23 -0700
lorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Monday 01 September 2003 01:17 pm, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 11:47, Niclas Jacobsson wrote:
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > I am co-using mouse and monitor with an MS XP Home Client
> > > through one of those mechanical switchboxes.  XPH manages to
> > > "loose" mouse and get it back working after switching, but
> > > Mandrake is loosing contact with the mouse until I log out
> > > from session then it comes alive again. Anybody encountered
> > > this before?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Niclas
> >
> > Yes a number of people have.  Mine did this as well, the quick
> > workaround is to do ctrl-alt-f1 and then switch when leaving
> > Linux. Then ctrl-alt-f7 when you come back to it.  Problem is in
> > the way the mechanical ones work (which is why XP has trouble as
> > well) restarting console mouse (service gpm ) if installed will
> > also get your mouse back.
> >
> > James
> 
> For what it is worth... I had an old Belkin KVM switch. Everytime
> I switched back to Linux, my mouse died. I ended up kill Xwindows
> and going back. I got tired of it. Quite by accident I have found
> that the linksys 4 port little KVM works like a dream. NO more
> problems at all. 
> 
> 
OTOH my Belkin OmniViewSE has worked flawlessly for over 2 yrs.

Lee


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] spoofed?

[dfox]

Well, I just received a heads up from my isp provider -- seems that there 
has been some naughtiness (?) going on here.. dunno what to do to fix it.

It seems there have been some pings/icmp activity from my system to some 
other system on the local tsoft network. I can't find anything in my logs 
regarding this activity.


-- > Aug  7 20:18:10 ns snort[26215]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx
>
> Aug 30 02:11:08 ns snort[15127]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx> Sep  1 12:21:10 ns 
snort[15127]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx
>
> Sep  1 12:36:17 ns snort[15127]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx

Notice that there's been some activity today... 





David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] spoofed?

[HaywireMac]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:19:24 -0700
dfox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:

> Well, I just received a heads up from my isp provider -- seems that
> there has been some naughtiness (?) going on here.. dunno what to do
> to fix it.
> 
> It seems there have been some pings/icmp activity from my system to
> some other system on the local tsoft network. I can't find anything in
> my logs regarding this activity.

Get a router/NAT/firewall that enables spoof protection.

If you have an extra old clunker lying around, BBIAgent will do this for
you:

http://www.bbiagent.net/

-- 
HaywireMac
Registered Linux user #282046
Homepage: nodex.sytes.net
++
Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org
++
Who does not trust enough will not be trusted.
-- Lao Tsu

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Some process changing groups & permissions

[Jack Coates]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:08, James Sparenberg wrote:
...
> 
> I like Todd's method rpm -e msec --nodeps and then put it into the urpmi
> skip list *grin*
> 
> James
...

It's got its uses, but I agree that the right mistake with msec can
royally screw a system. Of course, that's Unix for you; most tools can
bite if you don't learn how to use them right.
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[James Sparenberg]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 14:59, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
>  *** James Sparenberg Mon, 01 Sep 2003 13:27:29 -0700 :
> 
> > All,
> > 
> > There is an interesting discussion on pclinuxoneline.com
> > (texstar's
> > site.) Dealing with the upgrade cycle and some people wondering if the
> > 9.1 to 9.2 upgrade is going to be worth it.  
> 
> OK, James, thanks for the info, but is there anything new what we
> haven't already read and/or written during such same discussions since
> version 5.3?
> 
> It seems that nearly every half year we have the same discussion with
> the same subject and again, the same words and reasoning. One thing
> that's new is that it's *before* a final comes out. Normally this starts
> after a final comes out and someone complains about some bug or feature
> and says "They should have waited until the darn thing is ready!".
> That's the point when the discussion starts.
> 
> It's been on the MandrakeForum of old, in the MandrakeClub and - of
> course - many times in the newsgroup. 
> 
> Nevertheless, I hope that the reasonable posters win again. ;-)
> 


Wobo,

   I know the discussion.  And this isn't in the same vein.  It's taking
on a much more "logical" attitude.  One of the things being talked about
is something like pushing urpmi and it's usage as an upgrade tool to the
forefront.  That's why I mentioned it.  It's not what I've seen over and
over.  (Remember how everyone hated 7.2 and now they talk about it like
it was the most solid release ever? *grin*)  It's not a "complain about
the lousy release session" but more of a "I can't see what's in it for
me to do a wipe and install upgrade" conversation.  That's the only
reason I think it's interesting.  Not a "bitch" session so much as a
problem solving session... refreshing.

James



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] realtek rtl8180 wlan card -- drivers/modules.

[James Sparenberg]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 14:21, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I'm trying to get my wlan card to work in my laptop.
> It's a "sweex pcmcia card" with rtl8180 chip.
> 
> Now realtek offers download for drivers but not specifically for the mdk 
> kernel (I'm using the stock 2.4.21-0.13mdk with 9.1).
> The closest are IMO the redhat9.0 and/or suse8.2
> Anybody already been there, done that?
> 
> BTW cardctl ident says it's a "Rtl8180" and not "Rtl8180L" (the latter is more 
> problematic so it seems)

2 questions 

1.   Do you know what the driver should be.

2.   Can you post the full output of  the command [prompt]# cardctl
ident

I've been having luck of late with creating additions to the
/etc/pcmcia/config file.  I'd like to see if I can make it 3 for 3.

James



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Some process changing groups & permissions

[chort]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:10, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:08, James Sparenberg wrote:
> ...
> > 
> > I like Todd's method rpm -e msec --nodeps and then put it into the urpmi
> > skip list *grin*
> > 
> > James

Wh?  Uninstall msec???  It's a GREAT tool.  I'm glad Mandrake
includes it.  Just because you're running Linux doesn't mean you're
immune for any sort of attacks.  Ripping out the security mechanisms is
a good way to make it a target.

Learn to use msec correctly instead of banishing anything you don't
understand.

-- 
Brian Keefer


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[Lyvim Xaphir]

How many people here can successfully create a boot disk under 9.1 or
9.2 using mkbootdisk and a 1.4 meg floppy?


LX

-- 
°°°
Linux Mandrake 9.1  Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk
*Catch Star Trek Enterprise, Wednesdays on UPN*



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Some process changing groups & permissions

[James Sparenberg]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:28, chort wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:10, Jack Coates wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:08, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > ...
> > > 
> > > I like Todd's method rpm -e msec --nodeps and then put it into the urpmi
> > > skip list *grin*
> > > 
> > > James
> 
> Wh?  Uninstall msec???  It's a GREAT tool.  I'm glad Mandrake
> includes it.  Just because you're running Linux doesn't mean you're
> immune for any sort of attacks.  Ripping out the security mechanisms is
> a good way to make it a target.
> 
> Learn to use msec correctly instead of banishing anything you don't
> understand.


IF someone gets through 2 (or 5) firewalls depending on my location...
they probably aren't going to be slowed down by msec.  Yes it's a great
tool.  But not a panacea.  C is a great language but lousy for fast
prototyping. Need to apply the tool where need and not as a catch all.

James



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Wolfgang Bornath]

 *** James Sparenberg Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:09:21 -0700 :

>I know the discussion.  And this isn't in the same vein.  It's
>taking
> on a much more "logical" attitude.  One of the things being talked
> about is something like pushing urpmi and it's usage as an upgrade
> tool to the forefront.  That's why I mentioned it.  It's not what I've
> seen over and over.  (Remember how everyone hated 7.2 and now they
> talk about it like it was the most solid release ever? *grin*)

And after 9.0 it was 8.2 which was the best version ever! *g*

> not a "complain about the lousy release session" but more of a "I
> can't see what's in it for me to do a wipe and install upgrade"
> conversation.  That's the only reason I think it's interesting.  Not a
> "bitch" session so much as a problem solving session... refreshing.

I see. But don't they see that all these answers were given in one
sentence? You don't have to upgrade. Period. And a great part of the
reasons for releasing are not in the software but in finance.

OK, I won't take the discussion here. If I have time I'll jump over to
the real discussion. Right now I have to defend myself in a german
newsgroup where some bozo called me a troll! Me, a troll! =:O

wobo
-- 
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing!" (Sledge Hammer)
---
GnuPG Public Key on http://www.wolf-b.de/misc

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Jack Coates]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:09, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 14:59, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
> >  *** James Sparenberg Mon, 01 Sep 2003 13:27:29 -0700 :
> > 
> > > All,
> > > 
> > > There is an interesting discussion on pclinuxoneline.com
> > > (texstar's
> > > site.) Dealing with the upgrade cycle and some people wondering if the
> > > 9.1 to 9.2 upgrade is going to be worth it.  
> > 
> > OK, James, thanks for the info, but is there anything new what we
> > haven't already read and/or written during such same discussions since
> > version 5.3?
> > 
> > It seems that nearly every half year we have the same discussion with
> > the same subject and again, the same words and reasoning. One thing
> > that's new is that it's *before* a final comes out. Normally this starts
> > after a final comes out and someone complains about some bug or feature
> > and says "They should have waited until the darn thing is ready!".
> > That's the point when the discussion starts.
> > 
> > It's been on the MandrakeForum of old, in the MandrakeClub and - of
> > course - many times in the newsgroup. 
> > 
> > Nevertheless, I hope that the reasonable posters win again. ;-)
> > 
> 
> 
> Wobo,
> 
>I know the discussion.  And this isn't in the same vein.  It's taking
> on a much more "logical" attitude.  One of the things being talked about
> is something like pushing urpmi and it's usage as an upgrade tool to the
> forefront.  That's why I mentioned it.  It's not what I've seen over and
> over.  (Remember how everyone hated 7.2 and now they talk about it like
> it was the most solid release ever? *grin*)  It's not a "complain about
> the lousy release session" but more of a "I can't see what's in it for
> me to do a wipe and install upgrade" conversation.  That's the only
> reason I think it's interesting.  Not a "bitch" session so much as a
> problem solving session... refreshing.
> 
> James
> 

looked like most of the crew doesn't realize you can upgrade with urpmi
:-)

whatever. I'll upgrade a few weeks after release and hopefully swsusp
will start to work on my Vaio laptop.
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] locked -- ps related stuff

[Jack Coates]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 15:53, David E. Fox wrote:
> What would cause the following - other than hardware issues - I've only
> seen this type of behavior a log time ago when I had intermittent power
> to my HD drives.
> 
> And that was with an older system.

hardware -- overheating, low power, gremlins.

> 
> Specifically, any number of ps/w/top or related commands are hanging the
> shell. urpmi.update -a also hangs the shell. I am in the middle of a backup
> and so far have had to abort it twice and restart because of this. These
> processes are blocking so that I end up with a very high load average -- at
> present it is over 20.
> 

lacking access to /proc would do that -- any difference if root? msec up
at 4 or 5?

> Surprisingly, system response is speedy - it's just that the system thinks
> each of these processes is one that's waiting in the run queue, which of 
> course, they are.
> 
> Oh well, reboot time again.
> 
> 
> David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] spoofed?

[Jack Coates]

Say hi to Mike for me :-)

this is the same box with the ps problems, right? Put the latest
checkrootkit on a write-protected floppy and run it on there, I think
you might have a visitor.


On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:19, dfox wrote:
> Well, I just received a heads up from my isp provider -- seems that there 
> has been some naughtiness (?) going on here.. dunno what to do to fix it.
> 
> It seems there have been some pings/icmp activity from my system to some 
> other system on the local tsoft network. I can't find anything in my logs 
> regarding this activity.
> 
> 
> -- > Aug  7 20:18:10 ns snort[26215]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> > [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> > ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx
> >
> > Aug 30 02:11:08 ns snort[15127]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> > [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> > ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx> Sep  1 12:21:10 ns 
> snort[15127]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> > [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> > ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx
> >
> > Sep  1 12:36:17 ns snort[15127]: [1:469:1] ICMP PING NMAP =
> > [Classification: Attempted Information Leak] [Priori
> > ty: 2]: {ICMP} 198.144.206.157 -> 198.144.206.xx
> 
> Notice that there's been some activity today... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Michael Viron]

Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and possibly
in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .

You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:

go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry

remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .

The above key instructs windows to look for scheduled tasks on the pc in
question (which may slow done browsing by at least 30s).

Also take a look at
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Windows
/Windows_XP/?tc=1 , which includes about a hundred windows xp related sites
of tips / tweaks / guides and howtos.

Just some thoughts,

Michael

--
Michael Viron
Core Systems Group
Simple End User Linux
 
At 04:30 PM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>On Monday 01 September 2003 03:48 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
>> Greg Meyer wrote:
>> >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:13 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
>> >>I was the one who asked the question about slow transfers using Samba.
>> >>I asked on this list and on the newbie list.  Still have not received
>> >>any answers resolving the issue.
>> >>
>> >>When a transfer to or from a Samba box is initiated from a Win2000 box
>> >>it flies.  When the same transfer is initiated from a Samba box to
>> >>either another Samba box, or to a Win2000 box, it crawls at around 1/3
>> >>the speed of the Win2000 initiated transfer.  Is this expected behavior?
>> >
>> >I think the op of this thread had the slowness going the other way.  Samba
>> > to XP is fast, while XP to samba is fast.  In any case, it always seems
>> > to be a problem with the configuration of the windows machines, not the
>> > samba machines.
>>
>> Windows to Samba was only half of my comment.  An incorrect Windows
>> configuration doesn't explain a slow Samba to Samba transfer.
>
>I would agree from smb to smb, but I really don't believe this is an 
>"incorrect windows configuration" issue. There is a fundamental issue that I 
>believe Microsoft has done to deliberately break or slow samba. I may be 
>wrong, but I've not seen a solution yet. I did read somewhere that you now
no 
>longer need netbios resolution for XP to work, but I don't think this is the 
>problem. If anything that would help without a wins server. ??
>
>Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
>Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] msec configuration problem

[Avi Schwartz]

Hi,

This question started actually in the newbie mailing list but it may be 
more appropriate for the expert list.

I setup my machine with security level 4 but I am interested in 
relaxing some of the permission settings.  I made changes to 
/etc/security/msec/perm.local and then executed msec.  I found that 
msec does not make the requested changes unless I pass it the security 
level parameter as in

msec 4

If I don't pass this parameter, the local changes are not executed.  
Even if I do pass this parameter, on the hour, cron executes 
/etc/cron.hourly/msec which again resets my local changes and reverts 
to the default.

The reason for this is that in the following line in msec:

/usr/share/msec/Perms.py $CHANGE $OPT /usr/share/msec/perm.$PERM_LEVEL 
$LOCAL

$CHANGE is not set and therefore the local changes do not get saved.  
For now I hard coded in the msec script CHANGE=-c so that the changes 
will be saved.

Is this a bug in msec or am I missing some setting which will force 
msec to use my local changes?

Thanks,
Avi

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] locked -- ps related stuff

[David E. Fox]

> hardware -- overheating, low power, gremlins.

Well, it was gremlins in the other system -- actually the power cable to the
drives was a bit flaky, so anything that would access the drive (ex. df, ls,
etc.) would hang, with a corresponding linear increase in the overall
load average.

This time, it's different -- and it seems to have gone away in the last
urpmi --auto-select.

> lacking access to /proc would do that -- any difference if root? msec up
> at 4 or 5?

msec is standard; I don't raise it higher. root would hang as well as a user.
No difference there.

Reboot & urpmi seems to have fixed this problem -- now there's no kicker 
panel on my kde. D&*thing came up in twm :(

> Jack Coates
> Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Eric Huff]

> looked like most of the crew doesn't realize you can upgrade with
> urpmi:-)
> 
> whatever. I'll upgrade a few weeks after release and hopefully swsusp
> will start to work on my Vaio laptop.

A lot of people have complained of problems while upgrading. Is this not
an issue anymore?

eric

-- 
Mandrake HowTo's & More:   http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Some process changing groups & permissions

[chort]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:48, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:28, chort wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:10, Jack Coates wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:08, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > I like Todd's method rpm -e msec --nodeps and then put it into the urpmi
> > > > skip list *grin*
> > > > 
> > > > James
> > 
> > Wh?  Uninstall msec???  It's a GREAT tool.  I'm glad Mandrake
> > includes it.  Just because you're running Linux doesn't mean you're
> > immune for any sort of attacks.  Ripping out the security mechanisms is
> > a good way to make it a target.
> > 
> > Learn to use msec correctly instead of banishing anything you don't
> > understand.
> 
> 
> IF someone gets through 2 (or 5) firewalls depending on my location...
> they probably aren't going to be slowed down by msec.  Yes it's a great
> tool.  But not a panacea.  C is a great language but lousy for fast
> prototyping. Need to apply the tool where need and not as a catch all.
> 
> James

Point taken, but neither are firewalls a holistic solution.  There are
many avenues of attack which firewalls were never designed to stop. 
Besides, just having lots of layers doesn't mean security is increased. 
If all the firewalls run the same software/firmware or have the same
hardware weakness, they can all be bypassed just as easily.

I see msec as more protection against people who have permission to use
the machine, not unauthorized outside access.  According to most
estimates, 80-90% of attacks happen from the inside so it's really those
users you have to worry about any way.

I just have a knee-jerk reaction when ever someones solution to
inconvenient security mechanisms is to automatically remove them.  Some
are needed simply to protect us from ourselves.

Sure, the most usable computers are those without all the burden of
security, but by the same token it's easiest to destroy someones work on
an unprotected machine, so a balances needs to be struck.  msec and
Bastille (hope I spelled that right) are two very useful lockdown
utilities.  Just because they can occasionally be annoying doesn't mean
they should be whole-sale removed.

-- 
Brian Keefer


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Jack Coates]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 20:36, Eric Huff wrote:
> > looked like most of the crew doesn't realize you can upgrade with
> > urpmi:-)
> > 
> > whatever. I'll upgrade a few weeks after release and hopefully swsusp
> > will start to work on my Vaio laptop.
> 
> A lot of people have complained of problems while upgrading. Is this not
> an issue anymore?
> 
> eric

I haven't had problems with 8.2 to 9.0 or 9.0 to 9.1

-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] msec configuration problem

[Jack Coates]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 20:11, Avi Schwartz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This question started actually in the newbie mailing list but it may be 
> more appropriate for the expert list.
> 
> I setup my machine with security level 4 but I am interested in 
> relaxing some of the permission settings.  I made changes to 
> /etc/security/msec/perm.local and then executed msec.  I found that 
> msec does not make the requested changes unless I pass it the security 
> level parameter as in
> 
> msec 4
> 
> If I don't pass this parameter, the local changes are not executed.  
> Even if I do pass this parameter, on the hour, cron executes 
> /etc/cron.hourly/msec which again resets my local changes and reverts 
> to the default.
> 
> The reason for this is that in the following line in msec:
> 
> /usr/share/msec/Perms.py $CHANGE $OPT /usr/share/msec/perm.$PERM_LEVEL 
> $LOCAL
> 
> $CHANGE is not set and therefore the local changes do not get saved.  
> For now I hard coded in the msec script CHANGE=-c so that the changes 
> will be saved.
> 
> Is this a bug in msec or am I missing some setting which will force 
> msec to use my local changes?
> 
> Thanks,
> Avi

puzzling. Seems like a bug -- I can only assume that I've made my
changes manually and then altered perm.local so they'll stick, otherwise
I should have seen this too.
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[HaywireMac]

On 01 Sep 2003 20:52:45 -0700
Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:

> 
> I haven't had problems with 8.2 to 9.0 or 9.0 to 9.1

Even more,

Just keeps gettin' better an'  better...

Well, Ok , supermount, but that goes without saying.

"What 'av the Romans ever done fer us?!"

-- 
HaywireMac
Registered Linux user #282046
Homepage: nodex.sytes.net
++
Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org
++
Only those who leisurely approach that which the masses are busy about
can be busy about that which the masses take leisurely.
-- Lao Tsu

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] msec configuration problem

[Avi Schwartz]

On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 22:55 America/Chicago, Jack Coates wrote:

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 20:11, Avi Schwartz wrote:
Hi,

This question started actually in the newbie mailing list but it may 
be
more appropriate for the expert list.

I setup my machine with security level 4 but I am interested in
relaxing some of the permission settings.  I made changes to
/etc/security/msec/perm.local and then executed msec.  I found that
msec does not make the requested changes unless I pass it the security
level parameter as in
msec 4

If I don't pass this parameter, the local changes are not executed.
Even if I do pass this parameter, on the hour, cron executes
/etc/cron.hourly/msec which again resets my local changes and reverts
to the default.
The reason for this is that in the following line in msec:

/usr/share/msec/Perms.py $CHANGE $OPT /usr/share/msec/perm.$PERM_LEVEL
$LOCAL
$CHANGE is not set and therefore the local changes do not get saved.
For now I hard coded in the msec script CHANGE=-c so that the changes
will be saved.
Is this a bug in msec or am I missing some setting which will force
msec to use my local changes?
Thanks,
Avi
puzzling. Seems like a bug -- I can only assume that I've made my
changes manually and then altered perm.local so they'll stick, 
otherwise
I should have seen this too.

Then there is something else going on since I also did the changes 
manually but the next time that cron ran msec is restored it to the 
default without taking into account my changes.

If you look at your /etc/cron.hourly/msec is it a link to the msec 
executable?

Avi


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] msec configuration problem

[Jack Coates]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 21:06, Avi Schwartz wrote:
...
> > puzzling. Seems like a bug -- I can only assume that I've made my
> > changes manually and then altered perm.local so they'll stick, 
> > otherwise
> > I should have seen this too.
> >
> Then there is something else going on since I also did the changes 
> manually but the next time that cron ran msec is restored it to the 
> default without taking into account my changes.
> 
> If you look at your /etc/cron.hourly/msec is it a link to the msec 
> executable?
> 
> Avi
...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] jack]$ ll /etc/cron.hourly/msec 
lrwxr-xr-x1 root root   14 Sep 27  2002
/etc/cron.hourly/msec -> /usr/sbin/msec

check your log, sounds like msec isn't liking the perm.local file.
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[Rolf Pedersen]

Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
How many people here can successfully create a boot disk under 9.1 or
9.2 using mkbootdisk and a 1.4 meg floppy?
LX
Problems, here.  I usually fdformat /dev/fd0 as normal user but, in 9.2 
rc1, it seems I have to umount /mnt/floppy, as root, first. 
Kernel-2.4.22-1mdk.  In 9.1, kernel-2.4.21-0.18mm-mdk, the fdformat 
works w/o needing to umount.  In both, mkbootdisk (uname -r) gives an error:

cp: writing `/tmp/mkbootdisk/initrd.img': No space left on device
Error !
The disk shows something like:

$ ll /mnt/floppy
total 1424
-rwxrwxrwx1 rolf rolf   151552 Sep  1 21:14 initrd.img*
-r-xr-xr-x1 rolf rolf 7060 Sep  1 21:14 ldlinux.sys*
-rwxrwxrwx1 rolf rolf  1298632 Apr  6 15:48 vmlinuz*
Booting from either of these disks starts out with:

Could not find kernel image: linux
boot:
I can give vmlinuz to the boot: prompt and it loads until:

Kernel panic:VFS:unable to mount root fs on 08:05

Guessing because my filesystem is reiserfs and the initrd is not 
correctly made.

Rolf


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[Felix Miata]

Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
 
> How many people here can successfully create a boot disk under 9.1 or
> 9.2 using mkbootdisk and a 1.4 meg floppy?

Success: once on a non-SCSI 9.1 system

Failure: 6-8 times on SCSI (53c8xx) 9.1 & 9.2rc1 systems (out of space)
-- 
"...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry"
James 1:19 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Some process changing groups & permissions

[James Sparenberg]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 20:46, chort wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:48, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 19:28, chort wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 18:10, Jack Coates wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:08, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > I like Todd's method rpm -e msec --nodeps and then put it into the urpmi
> > > > > skip list *grin*
> > > > > 
> > > > > James
> > > 
> > > Wh?  Uninstall msec???  It's a GREAT tool.  I'm glad Mandrake
> > > includes it.  Just because you're running Linux doesn't mean you're
> > > immune for any sort of attacks.  Ripping out the security mechanisms is
> > > a good way to make it a target.
> > > 
> > > Learn to use msec correctly instead of banishing anything you don't
> > > understand.
> > 
> > 
> > IF someone gets through 2 (or 5) firewalls depending on my location...
> > they probably aren't going to be slowed down by msec.  Yes it's a great
> > tool.  But not a panacea.  C is a great language but lousy for fast
> > prototyping. Need to apply the tool where need and not as a catch all.
> > 
> > James
> 
> Point taken, but neither are firewalls a holistic solution.  There are
> many avenues of attack which firewalls were never designed to stop. 
> Besides, just having lots of layers doesn't mean security is increased. 
> If all the firewalls run the same software/firmware or have the same
> hardware weakness, they can all be bypassed just as easily.

True enough
> 
> I see msec as more protection against people who have permission to use
> the machine, not unauthorized outside access.  According to most
> estimates, 80-90% of attacks happen from the inside so it's really those
> users you have to worry about any way.

herein lies the rub... On the boxes I remove it from there is one user
. Me or,  I have some destructive testing boxes that msec is
just too helpful for.  (We'd double the setup time making constant
adjustments to msec so  away it goes.)  

> I just have a knee-jerk reaction when ever someones solution to
> inconvenient security mechanisms is to automatically remove them.  Some
> are needed simply to protect us from ourselves.

I don't need to be protected from myself. If I screw up. I pay the
price.  If I wanted to be protected from myself I'd run windows.  Or run
all of my boxes via knoppix without HDD's (screw up reboot it's back to
what was.) of course data preservation would be a bear. 

> 
> Sure, the most usable computers are those without all the burden of
> security, but by the same token it's easiest to destroy someones work on
> an unprotected machine, so a balances needs to be struck.  msec and
> Bastille (hope I spelled that right) are two very useful lockdown
> utilities.  Just because they can occasionally be annoying doesn't mean
> they should be whole-sale removed. 

Remember one thing.  Whatever an automated system does for you it also
does to you.  Annoyances.. nah when something is annoying it gets
squashed.  (flies, mosquitos etc)  When it is counter productive and
causes me to spend more time "fixing" it than doing real work... it gets
pulled.  (And yes I ran windows without IE) 

James



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Eric Huff]

> "What 'av the Romans ever done fer us?!"

Trippy.  We just watched the old Trek where they encountered "The Romans
in the 20th century".

-- 
Mandrake HowTo's & More:   http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Eric Huff]

> > A lot of people have complained of problems while upgrading. Is this
> > not an issue anymore?
> 
> I haven't had problems with 8.2 to 9.0 or 9.0 to 9.1

Interesting.  You said you upgraded with urpmi.  Does that mean you
didn't do an "install" and choose upgrade, but let urpmi do the work?

Either way, what is the "best" way to upgrade?  I started at 9.1, so
i've never encounter this choice before...

thanks,
eric

-- 
Mandrake HowTo's & More:   http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[James Sparenberg]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 22:19, Eric Huff wrote:
> > > A lot of people have complained of problems while upgrading. Is this
> > > not an issue anymore?
> > 
> > I haven't had problems with 8.2 to 9.0 or 9.0 to 9.1
> 
> Interesting.  You said you upgraded with urpmi.  Does that mean you
> didn't do an "install" and choose upgrade, but let urpmi do the work?
> 
> Either way, what is the "best" way to upgrade?  I started at 9.1, so
> i've never encounter this choice before...
> 
> thanks,

The beginnings of a tutorial is here.

http://pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=1&sid=7018#32054

Actually it was written by yama as an instruction set.  Also too
supposedly Ranger has also done one as well A(don't have the url) 

James

> eric


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Eric Huff]

> > Either way, what is the "best" way to upgrade?  I started at 9.1, so
> > i've never encounter this choice before...
> 
> The beginnings of a tutorial is here.
> 
> http://pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=1&sid=7018#32054

Thanks!  I added it to our TWiki under MandrakeReferences --> Tutorials
:

http://mandrake.vmlinuz.ca/bin/view/Main/MandrakeReferences#Tutorials


-- 
Mandrake HowTo's & More:   http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] realtek rtl8180 wlan card -- drivers/modules.

[H.J.Bathoorn]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 04:12, James Sparenberg wrote:

>
> 2 questions
>
> 1.   Do you know what the driver should be.

No not really, I'm supposing (going by the readme that comes with the realtek 
download) the module is rtl8180_24x.o which is part of the download.
if it doesn't work as delivered, one is suggested to compile one's own.


>
> 2.   Can you post the full output of  the command [prompt]# cardctl
> ident

# cardctl ident
Socket 0
product info: "realtek", "Rtl8180"
manfid: 0x, 0x024c
function: 6 (network)

# cat /proc/ioports (only the relevant parts)
..
0cf8-0cff : PCI conf1
4000-40ff : PCI CardBus #01
4000-40ff : PCI device 10ec:8180
4400-40ff : PCI CardBus #01

#cat /proc/pci (again only the relevant part)

..
Bus 1, device 0, function 0:
  Ethernet controller: PCI device 10ec:8180 (rev 32).
IRQ 9.
Master Capable. No bursts. Min Gnt=32.Max Lat=64.
I/O at 0x4000 [0x40ff].
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x1080 [0x108001ff].

> I've been having luck of late with creating additions to the
> /etc/pcmcia/config file.  I'd like to see if I can make it 3 for 3.

I used to be able to do that fairly off-hand for my Belkin card (not wlan!) 
but since kernel 2.4.x and some cardbus quirks I shoved 'em in a drawer and 
used a Xircom instead. But now theres wlan to tempt me!!
 
There is a mini howto for the linksys WPC11 card ( 
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/other-formats/html_single/Wireless-Link-sys-WPC11.html
 
) which uses the same 8180 chips as this "sweex" thing, that mentions using 
Orinoco_cs as driver instead of wavelan_cs or wvlan_cs on  Redhat.

They also mention that there is a difference between Rtl8180 and Rtl8180L and 
that the 8180 download from Realtek is meant for the latter.

All this info was starting to puzzle me, hence my asking if somebody else had 
already taken this road and could warn me of any pitfalls.

I tend to be overly cautious when entering unknown territory (especially with 
machines that can't be missed) and I've no experience whatso ever with wlan, 
yet.

-- 
Good luck,

HarM

Mandrake HowTo's & More:-) http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] KDE apps crash when trying to print

[reginvest]

Hello!

I just upgraded one comp from 9.0 to 9.1. Did clean install, everything OK, 
except for that KDE apps crash everytime I try to print. Tried it with KMail, 
Konqueror, KOffice. Printer setup utility of KDE Control Panel crashed as 
well, when I tried to take a look at settings.
Apps show printing dialog for 2-3 seconds, with Print button greyed out, then 
crash. Crash handler does not give any sensible messages.
System is, as I said, 9.1 with all the updates done as of yesterday, Printing 
system is CUPS, printer is LaserJet6L that has served me well since Mdk8.0 
times.
Other, non-KDE apps print OK.
I guess it might be some old KDE setting or file or whatever in my /home 
directory, but cannot even guess where to start lookin...

Wahur

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Can KMail be set to filter attachments?

[Anne Wilson]

On Monday 01 Sep 2003 10:54 pm, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
> Failed.  It crashes kmail. I tried to create a new folder in
> Maildir format, delete it, create a symlink by the same name to
> /dev/null.  I then tried to move an email in one of my other
> folders into the new /dev/null folder...it crashes kmail with a
> complaint that there isn't enough diskspace!
>
> I then tried it by creating it in mbox format.  Same result.
>
> There is just no way to send emails to /dev/null in kmail.
>
Hmm - that's something that needs doing.  I wonder how we get this 
back to the kde team?  I think it's probably a much higher priority 
than it was a year ago.

Thanks for the experiments and feedback.

Anne
-- 
Registered Linux User No.293302
Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet?


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[Anne Wilson]

On Tuesday 02 Sep 2003 3:46 am, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> How many people here can successfully create a boot disk under 9.1
> or 9.2 using mkbootdisk and a 1.4 meg floppy?
>
Under 9.1 I used the gui with success.

Anne
-- 
Registered Linux User No.293302
Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet?


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Print problems

[Anne Wilson]

On Monday 01 Sep 2003 4:54 pm, Larry Sword wrote:
> Anne,
>
> There are numerous settings you can make to the page and in the
> print settings.
> File->Page Setup -> "Format & Options", "Margins & Headers/Footer".
> Try playing around with these and then use the File->Print preview
> to check the page.
>
> Oh yes, in the Print-Properties you can set the Gap to the Margins.

Hi, Larry.  The point is that Moz won't let me change the margins.  It 
is set to 0.5", and if I try to change it, it simply reverts to 0.5" 
the moment I try to move to the next box.  Also, the preview displays 
correctly with the headers/footers, which makes me think that the 
file is being sent to CUPS correctly but with the wrong margins set.

I'll continue to experiment.  The d thing is not going to beat me 


Anne
-- 
Registered Linux User No.293302
Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet?


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Anne Wilson]

On Tuesday 02 Sep 2003 7:39 am, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 22:55, Eric Huff wrote:
> > > > Either way, what is the "best" way to upgrade?  I started at
> > > > 9.1, so i've never encounter this choice before...
> > >
> > > The beginnings of a tutorial is here.
> > >
> > > http://pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&tho
> > >ld=-1&mode=flat&order=1&sid=7018#32054
> >
> > Thanks!  I added it to our TWiki under MandrakeReferences -->
> > Tutorials
> >
> >
> > http://mandrake.vmlinuz.ca/bin/view/Main/MandrakeReferences#Tutor
> >ials
>
> beet me to the punch... thanks.

LOL - good to see things happening now.

What I'd really like to do is get a working copy of 9.1 over the top 
of the old 9.0, then upgrade that.  I guess it would need new 
partitions made for /usr and possibly /home, so perhaps it's more 
bother than it's worth, but for a working box the chance of an 
upgrade failing is worrying. I'll probably just do a fresh install to 
that partition.  OTOH, I'll still need to make the new partitions, 
copy data across, etc.

Hang on a minute - I said I wasn't going to go down that road  - 
it's too soon to do it all again 

Anne
-- 
Registered Linux User No.293302
Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet?


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] forgotten knowledge...

[Anne Wilson]

On Monday 01 Sep 2003 6:18 pm, Mark wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> I've forgotten how to do something that I used to know how to do.
> That is, using cat to combine a list of files into one single file.
>
> The problem:
> the list of files below, I would like to combine into just one
> file. les_csharp_12_p1.pdf
> les_csharp_12_p2.pdf
> les_csharp_12_p3.pdf
> les_csharp_12_p4.pdf
> les_csharp_12_p5.pdf
> les_csharp_12_p6.pdf
> les_csharp_12_p7.pdf
>
> I would like the contents of the above list of files to appear in
> this file: CSharp_LESSON12.pdf
>
> Solution: ???
>
> Mark

Hi, Mark.  I've been following this, and it doesn't look promising, so 
I wonder if it's time for a dirty solution.  Could you not pdf2ps all 
the files, open them in SOWriter, then cut and paste into one file, 
save that as a new pdf?

I know it's not elegant, but it might work.

Anne
-- 
Registered Linux User No.293302
Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet?


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] KDE apps crash when trying to print

[Dan Gordon]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:00:15 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Hello!
> 
> I just upgraded one comp from 9.0 to 9.1. Did clean install,
> everything OK, except for that KDE apps crash everytime I try to
> print. Tried it with KMail, Konqueror, KOffice. Printer setup utility
> of KDE Control Panel crashed as well, when I tried to take a look at
> settings. Apps show printing dialog for 2-3 seconds, with Print button
> greyed out, then crash. Crash handler does not give any sensible
> messages. 
> 
This sounds like the exact same thing that happened to me when i
installed TurboPrint. It had a uninstall script but like you have never
been able to print from KDE apps again, problem never fixed :-(

Regards,
Dan Gordon

-- 
Tue Sep  2 06:34:14 EDT 2003

 06:34:14 up 18:19,  2 users,  load average: 0.14, 0.08, 0.04
Endless Loop: n., see Loop, Endless.
Loop, Endless: n., see Endless Loop.
-- Random Shack Data Processing Dictionary

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] locked -- ps related stuff

[ed tharp]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 23:00, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 15:53, David E. Fox wrote:
> > What would cause the following - other than hardware issues - I've only
> > seen this type of behavior a log time ago when I had intermittent power
> > to my HD drives.
> > 
> > And that was with an older system.
> 
> hardware -- overheating, low power, gremlins.
what does 'df' say 



> 
> > 
> > Specifically, any number of ps/w/top or related commands are hanging the
> > shell. urpmi.update -a also hangs the shell. I am in the middle of a backup
> > and so far have had to abort it twice and restart because of this. These
> > processes are blocking so that I end up with a very high load average -- at
> > present it is over 20.
> > 
> 
> lacking access to /proc would do that -- any difference if root? msec up
> at 4 or 5?
> 
> > Surprisingly, system response is speedy - it's just that the system thinks
> > each of these processes is one that's waiting in the run queue, which of 
> > course, they are.
> > 
> > Oh well, reboot time again.
> > 
> > 
> > David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
> > ---
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __
> > 
> > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
> > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
-- 
++
Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[Charlie]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:46 pm, many eyes noted that Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> How many people here can successfully create a boot disk under 9.1 or
> 9.2 using mkbootdisk and a 1.4 meg floppy?
>
>
> LX

Define successful?

Boots the system with some problems identifying the CD ROM as an SCSI device 
with dialogue to change devices, asks does one want to run the configuration 
tool. Ignore this, and the system boots and runs without any obvious 
problems. then if you reboot without the floppy disk the same dialogue comes 
up again. Some devices altered or not recognised, ignore again, and 
everything works fine also. Fixes itself?

I may not create a boot floppy the right way? This is also on a standard 
kernel. 2.4.21-0.13mdk

Format floppy to DOS filesystem
Place into the floppy drive but do not mount
Use drakboot
Select Lilo/Grub mode /Configure
Bootloader main options /Advanced
Enable Create bootdisk OK
When complete just click OK

Never fails on different machines. But having said that, might have brought 
the devil to the door.

With Red Hat have created a boot floppy during install that has all the files 
but they have been empty, and the floppy didn't work.

Charlie

-- 
I am not afraid of storms, because I am learning to sail my ship.

Louise May Alcot.

This email is guaranteed to be wholly Linux Mandrake 9.1, Kmail v1.5 and
OpenOffice.org1Beta


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Print problems

[R N dev]

> Hi, Angelo.
> In Mozilla, when I try to change the margin from
> 0.5" to 1.0"  it 
> simply jumps back to 0.5".  I haven't tried running
> it is root - I 
> wonder if it would help - I'll try, in case it's a
> permission 
> problem.  I do think, though, that in older versions
> I could change 
> it there, so I think it's probably a bug.
> 

I haven't tested to change margins. I'll try it
tonight at home cause i've the same version of Moz.

I usually get netscape or konqueror as navigators,
but i think moz and netscape have the same behaviour.



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[Mark]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:

> 
> 
> How many people here can successfully create a boot disk under 9.1 or
> 9.2 using mkbootdisk and a 1.4 meg floppy?
> 
> 
> LX

Well...when I first loaded 9.1 thats how I had to do it to get a boot 
floppy. 

-- 
Mark

"If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?"
---
Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R)
Linux User Since 1996
Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1
ICQ# 27816299

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] Mandrake web site

[Mark]

Hi all,

is it me or has anyone else noticed that its next to impossible to 
navigate the Mandrake website. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get to 
the mailing list archives now for about an hour and either get a 
connection denied back from their web server, or it just sits there and 
goes nowhere.

-- 
Mark

"If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?"
---
Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R)
Linux User Since 1996
Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1
ICQ# 27816299

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Mandrake web site

[Steffen Barszus]

Am Dienstag, 2. September 2003 16:54 schrieb Mark:
> Hi all,
>
> is it me or has anyone else noticed that its next to impossible to
> navigate the Mandrake website. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get
> to the mailing list archives now for about an hour and either get a
> connection denied back from their web server, or it just sits there
> and goes nowhere.

Maybe they get DDoSed by all the people trying to get the rc1 ? 

Steffen

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] spoofed?

[David E. Fox]

> Get a router/NAT/firewall that enables spoof protection.

Well, yep. I was hoping for something I could do in software to detect 
and or stop this gremlin. 

> HaywireMac

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] (slight OT) Upgrade cycles discussion

[Jack Coates]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 22:19, Eric Huff wrote:
> > > A lot of people have complained of problems while upgrading. Is this
> > > not an issue anymore?
> > 
> > I haven't had problems with 8.2 to 9.0 or 9.0 to 9.1
> 
> Interesting.  You said you upgraded with urpmi.  Does that mean you
> didn't do an "install" and choose upgrade, but let urpmi do the work?

on my desktops and servers, I've run the installer and chosen upgrade.
My laptop has a firewire CD drive though, and the installer program
doesn't work, so I've done urpmi installs there.
> 
> Either way, what is the "best" way to upgrade?  I started at 9.1, so
> i've never encounter this choice before...
> 
> thanks,
> eric

depends on the needs of the moment -- e.g. if the installer won't run,
urpmi is the only option, but if there was an incompatible glibc change,
using the installer is good.
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Mandrake web site

[Mark]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Steffen Barszus wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 2. September 2003 16:54 schrieb Mark:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > is it me or has anyone else noticed that its next to impossible to
> > navigate the Mandrake website. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get
> > to the mailing list archives now for about an hour and either get a
> > connection denied back from their web server, or it just sits there
> > and goes nowhere.
> 
> Maybe they get DDoSed by all the people trying to get the rc1 ? 
> 
> Steffen
> 

yeah...guess thats possible. Maybe you can answer another question. I see 
the responses to my posts, but I don't see the actual posts appearing on 
the list. Any ideas? 

-- 
Mark

"If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?"
---
Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R)
Linux User Since 1996
Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1
ICQ# 27816299

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[David E. Fox]

> Define successful?

Doing it without running out of disk space would be successful. Of course, 
if it actually boots the right partition it would be even better.

I've been able to do this in 9.0. LX and I hashed over this; it seems 
that the kernels are SoBig :) now that there's not enough room on the floopy
for syslinux/grub (or lilo)/initrd and the kernel.
 
> Boots the system with some problems identifying the CD ROM as an SCSI device 
> with dialogue to change devices, asks does one want to run the configuration 

Have you done this with 9.2?

> I may not create a boot floppy the right way? This is also on a standard 
> kernel. 2.4.21-0.13mdk

Hmm. How big was that?

1337954 Aug 25 08:47 vmlinuz-2.4.22-1mdk


> Format floppy to DOS filesystem
> Place into the floppy drive but do not mount

Back in the "old days":

format floppy
cp /boot/zImage /dev/fd0
rdev /dev/fd0 /dev/hdX

That's from memory, and I may have the parameters reversed. It was always
a trick remembering the order for rdev. The intent is to simply ocpy the
kernel onto a good floppy and then rdev it -- this sets the root device, 
which you'd fill in with wherever your root happened to be.

If we go back to that mode, at least the kernel will fit on the floppy
by itself. If not, it's time to figure out why the kernels in 9.x are 
SoBig ;). In particular, lots of stuff is modularized so they're not in 
the monolithic kernel image.

Otherwise, hack drakboot to make disks with more sectors per track
than the "default" DOS format. After all, we aren't running DOS, so why
stick with 1.44mb floppies if you can tweak the format for 1.6 meg? 


> Charlie
 

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Mandrake web site

[Felix Miata]

Mark wrote:
 
> is it me or has anyone else noticed that its next to impossible to
> navigate the Mandrake website. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get to
> the mailing list archives now for about an hour and either get a
> connection denied back from their web server, or it just sits there and
> goes nowhere.

Yesterday I had this problem with Konqueror, but not with Mozilla.
-- 
"...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry"
James 1:19 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] OT: Hardware guru please - advice needed

[Anne Wilson]

On Tuesday 02 Sep 2003 12:14 am, Tom Brinkman wrote:
> Yes, sorry.  I'm so use to always havin it installed I didn't
> think, lm_sensors-2.8.0-4mdk.   Just 'urpmi lm_sensors'  I believe
> it's been included for some time, so an older lm_sensors package
> will probly work too. It's on your CD's

OK - installed it on my own box.  Amazing amount of info there!  Now 
all I have to do is read up on all the wonderful things lm_sensors 
can tell me :-)  Thanks

Anne
-- 
Registered Linux User No.293302
Have you visited http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org yet?


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Mandrake web site

[Steffen Barszus]

Am Dienstag, 2. September 2003 17:29 schrieb Mark:
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Steffen Barszus wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 2. September 2003 16:54 schrieb Mark:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > is it me or has anyone else noticed that its next to impossible
> > > to navigate the Mandrake website. I've been trying unsuccessfully
> > > to get to the mailing list archives now for about an hour and
> > > either get a connection denied back from their web server, or it
> > > just sits there and goes nowhere.
> >
> > Maybe they get DDoSed by all the people trying to get the rc1 ?
> >
> > Steffen
>
> yeah...guess thats possible. Maybe you can answer another question. I
> see the responses to my posts, but I don't see the actual posts
> appearing on the list. Any ideas?

sympa sucks. That is on all mailinglists of mandrake and with not 
reaching the archives it sucks even more :( I hope something will be 
done after 9.2 rush

Steffen

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] Changing Mouse

[James Conner]

I'm using a MS Intellimouse(with ball) on MDK 9.0.  It's currently identified 
as the following in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4:

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Mouse1"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "IMPS/2"
Option "Device" "/dev/psaux"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection

And works just fine.

I just bought a MS Intellimouse Optical and want to install that.  Both are 
going to use the PS/2 port.
My question is this:  Is it going to be just a shutdown, switch mice and power 
back up?  Or am I going to have to do some kind of setting changes to get it 
to work?  If so, what changes need to be made?  

Jim
-- 
 
 10:01am  up 23 days, 18:18,  3 users,  load average: 0.07, 0.09, 0.07

Running Mandrake 9.0 - Linux - because life is too short for reboots...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Changing Mouse

[mike]

I  made a  similar change and it was just power down change and powerup 
no big deal.
if you need to make any changes though it should prompt you during boot 
up or you can after  through the control tool  mcc . ( Mandrake Control 
Center )

James Conner wrote:

I'm using a MS Intellimouse(with ball) on MDK 9.0.  It's currently identified 
as the following in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4:

Section "InputDevice"
   Identifier "Mouse1"
   Driver "mouse"
   Option "Protocol" "IMPS/2"
   Option "Device" "/dev/psaux"
   Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection
And works just fine.

I just bought a MS Intellimouse Optical and want to install that.  Both are 
going to use the PS/2 port.
My question is this:  Is it going to be just a shutdown, switch mice and power 
back up?  Or am I going to have to do some kind of setting changes to get it 
to work?  If so, what changes need to be made?  

Jim
 



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
 

--
Mike McNeese Springdale, Arkansas USA
==
Dual booting 98lite;MDK 9.1 stock kernel Kde 3.1
Registered Linux User #248955 liquid/acqua  Theme
==
"If obstacles are what you see in your path...
   Then you have lost sight of your goal! "



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
> Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and possibly
> in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
>
> You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:
>
> go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
> Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
>
> remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .
>
First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had already 
tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the above 
key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring 285MB of 
data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far and my 
guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my linux 
server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes or 
less!! 

> The above key instructs windows to look for scheduled tasks on the pc in
> question (which may slow done browsing by at least 30s).
>
> Also take a look at
> 
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Windows/Windows_XP/?tc=1
 
, which includes about a hundred windows xp related
> sites of tips / tweaks / guides and howtos.
>
> Just some thoughts,
>
Thanks a bunch Michael. I've started looking them over. As you know, it is 
somewhat like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'm home sick today, so 
I'll do some more "googling" to see if someone has come up with a "fix" for 
this. 

If I forgot to mention, SP1 does NOT make a difference for my particular 
problem. Also, I'm using mdk 9.1 with out of the box Samba. Nothing 
"special". I'm running 100Bt Half duplex hub. XP to XP fast. XP to ME fast. 
Linux to XP fast. XP to Linux slow. ??? This one has me stumped. What 
is interesting is I swear when I was running older versions of Mandrake I 
don't recall this slowness. So even though I've bashed XP, perhaps it has 
been premature. I just thought of this. 
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Viron
> Core Systems Group
> Simple End User Linux
>
> At 04:30 PM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:48 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> >> Greg Meyer wrote:
> >> >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:13 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> >> >>I was the one who asked the question about slow transfers using Samba.
> >> >>I asked on this list and on the newbie list.  Still have not received
> >> >>any answers resolving the issue.
> >> >>
> >> >>When a transfer to or from a Samba box is initiated from a Win2000 box
> >> >>it flies.  When the same transfer is initiated from a Samba box to
> >> >>either another Samba box, or to a Win2000 box, it crawls at around 1/3
> >> >>the speed of the Win2000 initiated transfer.  Is this expected
> >> >> behavior?
> >> >
> >> >I think the op of this thread had the slowness going the other way. 
> >> > Samba to XP is fast, while XP to samba is fast.  In any case, it
> >> > always seems to be a problem with the configuration of the windows
> >> > machines, not the samba machines.
> >>
> >> Windows to Samba was only half of my comment.  An incorrect Windows
> >> configuration doesn't explain a slow Samba to Samba transfer.
> >
> >I would agree from smb to smb, but I really don't believe this is an
> >"incorrect windows configuration" issue. There is a fundamental issue that
> > I believe Microsoft has done to deliberately break or slow samba. I may
> > be wrong, but I've not seen a solution yet. I did read somewhere that you
> > now
>
> no
>
> >longer need netbios resolution for XP to work, but I don't think this is
> > the problem. If anything that would help without a wins server. ??
> >
> >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Changing Mouse

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:40 am, James Conner wrote:
> I'm using a MS Intellimouse(with ball) on MDK 9.0.  It's currently
> identified as the following in /etc/X11/XF86Config-4:
>
> Section "InputDevice"
> Identifier "Mouse1"
> Driver "mouse"
> Option "Protocol" "IMPS/2"
> Option "Device" "/dev/psaux"
> Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
> EndSection
>
> And works just fine.
>
> I just bought a MS Intellimouse Optical and want to install that.  Both are
> going to use the PS/2 port.
> My question is this:  Is it going to be just a shutdown, switch mice and
> power back up?  Or am I going to have to do some kind of setting changes to
> get it to work?  If so, what changes need to be made?
>
> Jim

Good news Jim. This is Linux. Power down and reboot Mickeysoft stuff. You 
should just be able to do a "service gpm restart" after changing the mouse. 



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Poll: Successful Boot Disk Creation

[Lyvim Xaphir]

On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 10:51, Mark wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > How many people here can successfully create a boot disk under 9.1 or
> > 9.2 using mkbootdisk and a 1.4 meg floppy?
> > 
> > 
> > LX
> 
> Well...when I first loaded 9.1 thats how I had to do it to get a boot 
> floppy. 

Have you tested the bootdisk?

LX
-- 
°°°
Linux Mandrake 9.1  Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk
*Catch Star Trek Enterprise, Wednesdays on UPN*



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Brant Fitzsimmons]

lorne wrote:

On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
 

Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and possibly
in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:

go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .

   

First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had already 
tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the above 
key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring 285MB of 
data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far and my 
guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my linux 
server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes or 
less!! 

This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on 
the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you 
called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I 
got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box 
using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I 
initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get 
the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in speed?

A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a 
totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The 
question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in 
Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by 
Windows?

The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It 
experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being 
the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.

 

The above key instructs windows to look for scheduled tasks on the pc in
question (which may slow done browsing by at least 30s).
Also take a look at

   

http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Windows/Windows_XP/?tc=1 
, which includes about a hundred windows xp related
 

sites of tips / tweaks / guides and howtos.

Just some thoughts,

   

Thanks a bunch Michael. I've started looking them over. As you know, it is 
somewhat like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'm home sick today, so 
I'll do some more "googling" to see if someone has come up with a "fix" for 
this. 

If I forgot to mention, SP1 does NOT make a difference for my particular 
problem. Also, I'm using mdk 9.1 with out of the box Samba. Nothing 
"special". I'm running 100Bt Half duplex hub. XP to XP fast. XP to ME fast. 
Linux to XP fast. XP to Linux slow. ??? This one has me stumped. What 
is interesting is I swear when I was running older versions of Mandrake I 
don't recall this slowness. So even though I've bashed XP, perhaps it has 
been premature. I just thought of this. 
 

Michael

--
Michael Viron
Core Systems Group
Simple End User Linux
At 04:30 PM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
   

On Monday 01 September 2003 03:48 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
 

Greg Meyer wrote:
   

On Monday 01 September 2003 03:13 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
 

I was the one who asked the question about slow transfers using Samba.
I asked on this list and on the newbie list.  Still have not received
any answers resolving the issue.
When a transfer to or from a Samba box is initiated from a Win2000 box
it flies.  When the same transfer is initiated from a Samba box to
either another Samba box, or to a Win2000 box, it crawls at around 1/3
the speed of the Win2000 initiated transfer.  Is this expected
behavior?
   

I think the op of this thread had the slowness going the other way. 
Samba to XP is fast, while XP to samba is fast.  In any case, it
always seems to be a problem with the configuration of the windows
machines, not the samba machines.
 

Windows to Samba was only half of my comment.  An incorrect Windows
configuration doesn't explain a slow Samba to Samba transfer.
   

I would agree from smb to smb, but I really don't believe this is an
"incorrect windows configuration" issue. There is a fundamental issue that
I believe Microsoft has done to deliberately break or slow samba. I may
be wrong, but I've not seen a solution yet. I did read somewhere that you
now
 

no

   

longer need netbios resolution for XP to work, but I don't think this is
the problem. If anything that would help without a wins server. ??


--
Brant Fitzsimmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/
   AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk
   KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client
Uptime:
13:30:00 up 4 days, 18:31,  1 

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Ronald J. Hall]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:44 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:

> The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It
> experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being
> the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.

Missed the first part of this thread, but the above caught me eye:

I use NFS here on our 3 comp LAN and we get around 10-12 megs/s transfers.

I routinely cope big files across to my sons' comps and it surely doesn't take 
as long as you are describing...

I'm not really even sure what I'm supposed to be getting but it seems okay - 
what is a "normal" NFS transfer rate?

-- 
  
  /\  
Dark>Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 10:44 am, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on
> the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you
> called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I
> got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box
> using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I
> initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get
> the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in
> speed?
>
?? I think we are talking bananas and apples here. If you read my message, I 
stated that after about 9 minutes of transferring the files, I stopped the XP 
to linux copy and it was still not done. About 1-2 minutes the other way 
around. HUGE difference. You are saying a factor of 2 the opposite direction 
of what I'm seeing. I'd be most interested in knowing how you got that. If I 
could even get a 2:1 factor I'd be most happy indeed! I don't have hours to 
copy something that should take minutes. makes a linux server rather useless 
for files no?

> A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a
> totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The
> question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in
> Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by
> Windows?
>
> The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It
> experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being
> the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[chort]

On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 10:44, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> lorne wrote:
> 
> >On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
> >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and possibly
> >>in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
> >>
> >>You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:
> >>
> >>go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
> >>Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
> >>
> >>remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had already 
> >tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the above 
> >key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring 285MB of 
> >data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far and my 
> >guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my linux 
> >server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes or 
> >less!! 
> >
> 
> This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on 
> the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you 
> called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I 
> got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box 
> using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I 
> initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get 
> the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in speed?
> 
> A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a 
> totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The 
> question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in 
> Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by 
> Windows?
> 
> The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It 
> experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being 
> the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.
> 

Remember though, this particular network is on a HUB, i.e. half-duplex. 
If there is any other sort of traffic what-so-ever it's going to be
noticeably slower (DNS lookups, Net-BT broadcasts, etc).

-- 
Brian Keefer


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[David Rankin]

Mates:

Here is another clue that may help get to the bottom of this. Back in
the 7.2 days when Samba 2.0X, 2.1X was comming out, the slow transfer issue
appeared with Win98 transfers. The 2 gig limit was also there. The slow
transfer from win to mdk was discussed as a "packet fragmentation" or
"rabbit pellet packet fragmentation" problem by Civileme. The Samba folks
also worked the issue. The issue was evidently resolved for win98, but the
same type of problem could have reared its head again.

I tried to do a archive search for this issue, but for some reason the
archive search daemon would not connect. Anyway, I would suggest an expert
archive search for "packet fragmentation" or "rabbit pellet" to get the
history of the issue. M$ may have changed smb just enough to recreate this
condition and the Samba folks may have some more work to do.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax
--
- Original Message - 
From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`


> On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
> > Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and
possibly
> > in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
> >
> > You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:
> >
> > go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
> > Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
> >
> > remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .
> >
> First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had already
> tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the above
> key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring 285MB
of
> data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far and
my
> guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my
linux
> server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes or
> less!!
>
> > The above key instructs windows to look for scheduled tasks on the pc in
> > question (which may slow done browsing by at least 30s).
> >
> > Also take a look at
> >
>
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Windows/Windows_XP/?tc=1
> , which includes about a hundred windows xp related
> > sites of tips / tweaks / guides and howtos.
> >
> > Just some thoughts,
> >
> Thanks a bunch Michael. I've started looking them over. As you know, it is
> somewhat like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'm home sick today, so
> I'll do some more "googling" to see if someone has come up with a "fix"
for
> this.
>
> If I forgot to mention, SP1 does NOT make a difference for my particular
> problem. Also, I'm using mdk 9.1 with out of the box Samba. Nothing
> "special". I'm running 100Bt Half duplex hub. XP to XP fast. XP to ME
fast.
> Linux to XP fast. XP to Linux slow. ??? This one has me stumped.
What
> is interesting is I swear when I was running older versions of
Mandrake I
> don't recall this slowness. So even though I've bashed XP, perhaps it has
> been premature. I just thought of this.
> > Michael
> >
> > --
> > Michael Viron
> > Core Systems Group
> > Simple End User Linux
> >
> > At 04:30 PM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:48 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > >> Greg Meyer wrote:
> > >> >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:13 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > >> >>I was the one who asked the question about slow transfers using
Samba.
> > >> >>I asked on this list and on the newbie list.  Still have not
received
> > >> >>any answers resolving the issue.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>When a transfer to or from a Samba box is initiated from a Win2000
box
> > >> >>it flies.  When the same transfer is initiated from a Samba box to
> > >> >>either another Samba box, or to a Win2000 box, it crawls at around
1/3
> > >> >>the speed of the Win2000 initiated transfer.  Is this expected
> > >> >> behavior?
> > >> >
> > >> >I think the op of this thread had the slowness going the other way.
> > >> > Samba to XP is fast, while XP to samba is fast.  In any case, it
> > >> > always seems to be a problem with the configuration of the windows
> > >> > machines, not the samba machines.
> > >>
> > >> Windows to Samba was only half of my comment.  An incorrect Windows
> > >> configuration doesn't explain a slow Samba to Samba transfer.
> > >
> > >I would agree from smb to smb, but I really don't believe this is an
> > >"incorrect windows configuration" issue. There is a fundamental issue
that
> > > I believe Microsoft has done to deliberately break or slow samba. I
may
> > > be wrong, but I've not seen a solution yet. I did read somewhere that
you
> > > now
> >
> > no
> >
> > >longer need netbios resolution for XP to work

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[David Rankin]

Brian wrote:

> Remember though, this particular network is on a HUB, i.e. half-duplex.
> If there is any other sort of traffic what-so-ever it's going to be
> noticeably slower (DNS lookups, Net-BT broadcasts, etc).
>

Brings up a good point. Specifically, how many hubs are we talking
about? Are there more than 2 hubs between the mdk and XP box? If it's a 1
hub small network, DNS and NETBIOS braodcasts shouldn't be that much of an
issue.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax
--
- Original Message - 
From: "chort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`


> On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 10:44, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > lorne wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
> > >>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and
possibly
> > >>in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
> > >>
> > >>You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:
> > >>
> > >>go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
> > >>Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
> > >>
> > >>remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had
already
> > >tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the
above
> > >key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring
285MB of
> > >data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far
and my
> > >guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my
linux
> > >server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes
or
> > >less!!
> > >
> >
> > This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on
> > the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you
> > called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I
> > got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box
> > using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I
> > initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get
> > the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in
speed?
> >
> > A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a
> > totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The
> > question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in
> > Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by
> > Windows?
> >
> > The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It
> > experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being
> > the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.
> >
>
> Remember though, this particular network is on a HUB, i.e. half-duplex.
> If there is any other sort of traffic what-so-ever it's going to be
> noticeably slower (DNS lookups, Net-BT broadcasts, etc).
>
> -- 
> Brian Keefer
>
>
>






> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[David Rankin]

For what it's worth, here is more info than needed on smb and CIFS.

http://ubiqx.org/cifs/index.html#Contents

--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax
--
- Original Message - 
From: "David Rankin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`


> Mates:
>
> Here is another clue that may help get to the bottom of this. Back in
> the 7.2 days when Samba 2.0X, 2.1X was comming out, the slow transfer
issue
> appeared with Win98 transfers. The 2 gig limit was also there. The slow
> transfer from win to mdk was discussed as a "packet fragmentation" or
> "rabbit pellet packet fragmentation" problem by Civileme. The Samba folks
> also worked the issue. The issue was evidently resolved for win98, but the
> same type of problem could have reared its head again.
>
> I tried to do a archive search for this issue, but for some reason the
> archive search daemon would not connect. Anyway, I would suggest an expert
> archive search for "packet fragmentation" or "rabbit pellet" to get the
> history of the issue. M$ may have changed smb just enough to recreate this
> condition and the Samba folks may have some more work to do.
>
> --
> David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> 510 Ochiltree Street
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> (936) 715-9333
> (936) 715-9339 fax
> --
> - Original Message - 
> From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
>
>
> > On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
> > > Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and
> possibly
> > > in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
> > >
> > > You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:
> > >
> > > go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
> > > Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
> > >
> > > remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .
> > >
> > First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had
already
> > tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the
above
> > key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring 285MB
> of
> > data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far
and
> my
> > guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my
> linux
> > server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes
or
> > less!!
> >
> > > The above key instructs windows to look for scheduled tasks on the pc
in
> > > question (which may slow done browsing by at least 30s).
> > >
> > > Also take a look at
> > >
> >
>
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Windows/Windows_XP/?tc=1
> > , which includes about a hundred windows xp related
> > > sites of tips / tweaks / guides and howtos.
> > >
> > > Just some thoughts,
> > >
> > Thanks a bunch Michael. I've started looking them over. As you know, it
is
> > somewhat like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'm home sick today,
so
> > I'll do some more "googling" to see if someone has come up with a "fix"
> for
> > this.
> >
> > If I forgot to mention, SP1 does NOT make a difference for my particular
> > problem. Also, I'm using mdk 9.1 with out of the box Samba. Nothing
> > "special". I'm running 100Bt Half duplex hub. XP to XP fast. XP to ME
> fast.
> > Linux to XP fast. XP to Linux slow. ??? This one has me stumped.
> What
> > is interesting is I swear when I was running older versions of
> Mandrake I
> > don't recall this slowness. So even though I've bashed XP, perhaps it
has
> > been premature. I just thought of this.
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Viron
> > > Core Systems Group
> > > Simple End User Linux
> > >
> > > At 04:30 PM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:48 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > > >> Greg Meyer wrote:
> > > >> >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:13 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > > >> >>I was the one who asked the question about slow transfers using
> Samba.
> > > >> >>I asked on this list and on the newbie list.  Still have not
> received
> > > >> >>any answers resolving the issue.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>When a transfer to or from a Samba box is initiated from a
Win2000
> box
> > > >> >>it flies.  When the same transfer is initiated from a Samba box
to
> > > >> >>either another Samba box, or to a Win2000 box, it crawls at
around
> 1/3
> > > >> >>the speed of the Win2000 initiated transfer.  Is this expected
> > > >> >> behavior?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I think the op of this thread had the slowness going the other
way.
> > > >> > Samba to XP is fast, while XP to samba is fast.  In any case, it
> > > >>

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Thomas Backlund]

From: "David Rankin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For what it's worth, here is more info than needed on smb and CIFS.
> 
> http://ubiqx.org/cifs/index.html#Contents
> 

Just an update for you all...

upcoming MDK 9.2 has cifs support in both kernel and 
Samba 2.2.x / 3.x ...

Thomas






Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Brant Fitzsimmons]

chort wrote:

On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 10:44, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
 

lorne wrote:

   

On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:

 

Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and possibly
in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:

go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .

  

   

First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had already 
tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the above 
key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring 285MB of 
data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far and my 
guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my linux 
server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes or 
less!! 

 

This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on 
the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you 
called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I 
got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box 
using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I 
initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get 
the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in speed?

A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a 
totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The 
question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in 
Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by 
Windows?

The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It 
experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being 
the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.

   

Remember though, this particular network is on a HUB, i.e. half-duplex. 
If there is any other sort of traffic what-so-ever it's going to be
noticeably slower (DNS lookups, Net-BT broadcasts, etc).

Who's network?

--
Brant Fitzsimmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/
   AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk
   KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client
Uptime:
15:40:01 up 4 days, 20:41,  1 user,  load average: 0.12, 0.12, 0.23
___
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Brant Fitzsimmons]

Ronald J. Hall wrote:

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:44 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:

 

The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It
experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being
the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.
   

Missed the first part of this thread, but the above caught me eye:

I use NFS here on our 3 comp LAN and we get around 10-12 megs/s transfers.

I routinely cope big files across to my sons' comps and it surely doesn't take 
as long as you are describing...

I'm not really even sure what I'm supposed to be getting but it seems okay - 
what is a "normal" NFS transfer rate?

In a mixed Windows/ Linux environment it is easier, and from what I've 
read, more secure to use Samba for all file serving.  I haven't used NFS 
for file serving so I can't comment on it's speed.

When I initiate a file transfer on a Windows machine to or from a Linux 
(Samba) machine I get 8-9 megs/s transfers.  When I use an ftp transfer 
on a local network I get 11-12 meg/s transfers.

When I initiate a transfer on a Linux (Samba) box to or from another 
Linux(Samba) box, or to or from a Windows box, I get 3-4 meg/s 
tranfers.  This is the one I'm trying to fix.

--
Brant Fitzsimmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/
   AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk
   KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client
Uptime:
14:10:01 up 4 days, 19:11,  1 user,  load average: 0.36, 0.47, 0.52
___
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Brant Fitzsimmons]

lorne wrote:

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 10:44 am, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
 

This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on
the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you
called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I
got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box
using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I
initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get
the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in
speed?
? I think we are talking bananas and apples here. If you read my message, I 
stated that after about 9 minutes of transferring the files, I stopped the XP 
to linux copy and it was still not done. About 1-2 minutes the other way 
around. HUGE difference. You are saying a factor of 2 the opposite direction 
of what I'm seeing. I'd be most interested in knowing how you got that. If I 
could even get a 2:1 factor I'd be most happy indeed! I don't have hours to 
copy something that should take minutes. makes a linux server rather useless 
for files no?

I'm claiming a doubling in speed to or from either machine as long as 
the transfer is initiated by the Windows machine.  If you initiate the 
transfer on the Linux machine (using cp, Konqueror, or Nautilus), you 
will get a slow transfer.

A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a
totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The
question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in
Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by
Windows?
The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It
experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being
the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.
--
Brant Fitzsimmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/
   AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk
   KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client
Uptime:
14:05:01 up 4 days, 19:06,  1 user,  load average: 0.40, 0.88, 0.65
___
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] dm in 9.2RC1 dying...

[Mark]

Hi all,

Is anyone else seeing this happen? What I mean is the system boots just 
fine to the GUI login screen, but after I've logged out of my Xwindows 
session it doesn't remain in init 5, but drops to init 3, and the console 
login appears. In order to get the GUI login screen back I've got to drop 
to init 1 and then go to init 5.

-- 
Mark

"If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?"
---
Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R)
Linux User Since 1996
Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1
ICQ# 27816299

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Ronald J. Hall]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:22 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:

> When I initiate a transfer on a Linux (Samba) box to or from another
> Linux(Samba) box, or to or from a Windows box, I get 3-4 meg/s
> tranfers.  This is the one I'm trying to fix.

Yep, that definitely seems slow to me. Isn't there some stuff in the Samba 
configuration file where you can adjust that?

-- 
  
  /\  
Dark>Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 11:14 am, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> lorne wrote:
> >On Tuesday 02 September 2003 10:44 am, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> >>This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on
> >>the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you
> >>called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I
> >>got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box
> >>using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I
> >>initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get
> >>the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in
> >>speed?
> >
> >? I think we are talking bananas and apples here. If you read my message,
> > I stated that after about 9 minutes of transferring the files, I stopped
> > the XP to linux copy and it was still not done. About 1-2 minutes the
> > other way around. HUGE difference. You are saying a factor of 2 the
> > opposite direction of what I'm seeing. I'd be most interested in knowing
> > how you got that. If I could even get a 2:1 factor I'd be most happy
> > indeed! I don't have hours to copy something that should take minutes.
> > makes a linux server rather useless for files no?
>
> I'm claiming a doubling in speed to or from either machine as long as
> the transfer is initiated by the Windows machine.  If you initiate the
> transfer on the Linux machine (using cp, Konqueror, or Nautilus), you
> will get a slow transfer.
>
Then the issue you are having is not the same thing I'm having. Pure and 
simple. I'm getting roughly 150mb a minute from my linux box to XP (either 
direction initiated from the Linux box) 4-5mb a sec. From the XP box to 
(either direction initiated from the XP box) the linux box I'm getting 
roughly .2 mb a minute! 

> >>A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a
> >>totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The
> >>question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in
> >>Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by
> >>Windows?
> >>
> >>The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It
> >>experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being
> >>the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Brant Fitzsimmons]

Ronald J. Hall wrote:

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:22 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:

 

When I initiate a transfer on a Linux (Samba) box to or from another
Linux(Samba) box, or to or from a Windows box, I get 3-4 meg/s
tranfers.  This is the one I'm trying to fix.
   

Yep, that definitely seems slow to me. Isn't there some stuff in the Samba 
configuration file where you can adjust that?

I'm using the Mandrake Samba configuration.  I was under the impression 
that Mandrake's Samba install is configured with widely known speed 
enhancing parameters out of the box.

The problem appears to be in the initiation of the transfer; whatever 
handles that in Mandrake.  Windows has no problem with talking to 
Samba.  Why does Linux?

--
Brant Fitzsimmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/
   AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk
   KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client
Uptime:
16:30:00 up 4 days, 21:31,  1 user,  load average: 0.09, 0.06, 0.10
___
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 11:09 am, chort wrote:
> Remember though, this particular network is on a HUB, i.e. half-duplex.
> If there is any other sort of traffic what-so-ever it's going to be
> noticeably slower (DNS lookups, Net-BT broadcasts, etc).

Agreed. First thing I looked for in the traces. No collisions, very little 
traffic. This is a network with all of 3 computers. 1 Xp, 1 Mdk 9.1 and 1 ME. 
Well the firewall if that counts, but the arps and bdcasts are at a nominal 
amount. I realize that at Hafl Duplex, I'm not going to see HUGE speeds, but 
roughly 10-20mb a minute is nuts! I would love to hear if anyone is really 
seeing good speeds from XP to Linux at better than 2mb a sec. ?? It looks 
during my research today that SP1 for XP actually causes more problems than 
it solves in some cases. 


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 12:41 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:

> >Remember though, this particular network is on a HUB, i.e. half-duplex.
> >If there is any other sort of traffic what-so-ever it's going to be
> >noticeably slower (DNS lookups, Net-BT broadcasts, etc).
>
> Who's network?

Just a simple intranet. 1 hub.

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[Brant Fitzsimmons]

lorne wrote:

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 11:14 am, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
 

lorne wrote:
   

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 10:44 am, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
 

This illustrates my point perfectly.  When you initiated the transfer on
the Linux box it took around two minutes to do the transfer, and you
called it fast (blast).  I repeated that behavior in my own setup.  I
got the same results when initiating the transfer on my Mandrake box
using Konqueror and command line (cp).  I call it slow because when I
initiate the transfer on the Win2000 box, using Windows Explorer, I get
the same transfer done in under a minute.  Why the huge difference in
speed?
   

? I think we are talking bananas and apples here. If you read my message,
I stated that after about 9 minutes of transferring the files, I stopped
the XP to linux copy and it was still not done. About 1-2 minutes the
other way around. HUGE difference. You are saying a factor of 2 the
opposite direction of what I'm seeing. I'd be most interested in knowing
how you got that. If I could even get a 2:1 factor I'd be most happy
indeed! I don't have hours to copy something that should take minutes.
makes a linux server rather useless for files no?
 

I'm claiming a doubling in speed to or from either machine as long as
the transfer is initiated by the Windows machine.  If you initiate the
transfer on the Linux machine (using cp, Konqueror, or Nautilus), you
will get a slow transfer.
hen the issue you are having is not the same thing I'm having. Pure and 
simple. 

After reading the rest of your post I agree.

I'm getting roughly 150mb a minute from my linux box to XP (either 
direction initiated from the Linux box) 4-5mb a sec.  

This is also what I am getting (half as slow as when initiated by Windows).

From the XP box to (either direction initiated from the XP box) the linux box I'm getting 
roughly .2 mb a minute! 

That kind of speed can definitely get in the way of getting anything 
done.  :-(

A two minute transfer for a file that size may be fast compared to a
totally broken setup, but it is still half as fast as it should be.  The
question is: what needs to be done to have file transfers initiated in
Linux get the same transfer speed experienced when they are initiated by
Windows?
The same thing can be said for transfers between Linux and Linux.  It
experiences the same crippled transfer speed.  The common thread being
the transfer is initiated on a Linux box.
--
Brant Fitzsimmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/
   AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk
   KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client
Uptime:
16:35:01 up 4 days, 21:36,  1 user,  load average: 0.32, 0.16, 0.11
___
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 11:27 am, David Rankin wrote:
> Mates:
>
> Here is another clue that may help get to the bottom of this. Back in
> the 7.2 days when Samba 2.0X, 2.1X was comming out, the slow transfer issue
> appeared with Win98 transfers. The 2 gig limit was also there. The slow
> transfer from win to mdk was discussed as a "packet fragmentation" or
> "rabbit pellet packet fragmentation" problem by Civileme. The Samba folks
> also worked the issue. The issue was evidently resolved for win98, but the
> same type of problem could have reared its head again.
>
> I tried to do a archive search for this issue, but for some reason the
> archive search daemon would not connect. Anyway, I would suggest an expert
> archive search for "packet fragmentation" or "rabbit pellet" to get the
> history of the issue. M$ may have changed smb just enough to recreate this
> condition and the Samba folks may have some more work to do.
>
Very good point. I noticed an awful lot of 1514 frames. Let me go back and 
take another look see. I might have missed something. 

BAH... I'm going to do another trace. I'll make it more controlled. Using the 
exact same file so I can make a better comparison. I'm not seeing anything 
the jumps out at me. 1514 frames though. ?? I'll write back.


> --
> David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> 510 Ochiltree Street
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> (936) 715-9333
> (936) 715-9339 fax
> --
> - Original Message -
> From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
>
> > On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
> > > Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and
>
> possibly
>
> > > in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
> > >
> > > You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:
> > >
> > > go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
> > > Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
> > >
> > > remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .
> >
> > First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had already
> > tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried removing the
> > above key and it made no difference at all. As we speak I'm transferring
> > 285MB
>
> of
>
> > data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far
> > and
>
> my
>
> > guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my
>
> linux
>
> > server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes
> > or less!!
> >
> > > The above key instructs windows to look for scheduled tasks on the pc
> > > in question (which may slow done browsing by at least 30s).
> > >
> > > Also take a look at
>
> http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Window
>s/Windows_XP/?tc=1
>
> > , which includes about a hundred windows xp related
> >
> > > sites of tips / tweaks / guides and howtos.
> > >
> > > Just some thoughts,
> >
> > Thanks a bunch Michael. I've started looking them over. As you know, it
> > is somewhat like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'm home sick today,
> > so I'll do some more "googling" to see if someone has come up with a
> > "fix"
>
> for
>
> > this.
> >
> > If I forgot to mention, SP1 does NOT make a difference for my particular
> > problem. Also, I'm using mdk 9.1 with out of the box Samba. Nothing
> > "special". I'm running 100Bt Half duplex hub. XP to XP fast. XP to ME
>
> fast.
>
> > Linux to XP fast. XP to Linux slow. ??? This one has me stumped.
>
> What
>
> > is interesting is I swear when I was running older versions of
>
> Mandrake I
>
> > don't recall this slowness. So even though I've bashed XP, perhaps it has
> > been premature. I just thought of this.
> >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Viron
> > > Core Systems Group
> > > Simple End User Linux
> > >
> > > At 04:30 PM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:48 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > > >> Greg Meyer wrote:
> > > >> >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:13 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > > >> >>I was the one who asked the question about slow transfers using
>
> Samba.
>
> > > >> >>I asked on this list and on the newbie list.  Still have not
>
> received
>
> > > >> >>any answers resolving the issue.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>When a transfer to or from a Samba box is initiated from a Win2000
>
> box
>
> > > >> >>it flies.  When the same transfer is initiated from a Samba box to
> > > >> >>either another Samba box, or to a Win2000 box, it crawls at around
>
> 1/3
>
> > > >> >>the speed of the Win2000 initiated transfer.  Is this expected
> > > >> >> behavior?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I think the op of this thread had the slowness going the other way.
> > > >> > Samba to XP is fast, while XP to samba is fast.

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 11:36 am, David Rankin wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > Remember though, this particular network is on a HUB, i.e. half-duplex.
> > If there is any other sort of traffic what-so-ever it's going to be
> > noticeably slower (DNS lookups, Net-BT broadcasts, etc).
>
> Brings up a good point. Specifically, how many hubs are we talking
> about? Are there more than 2 hubs between the mdk and XP box? If it's a 1
> hub small network, DNS and NETBIOS braodcasts shouldn't be that much of an
> issue.
>
Not much. A MNF firewall, 1 hub, 1mdk 9.1, 1 xp and one ME. That is it. Traces 
show not much traffic other than the typical arp and bdcst. 

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 12:13 pm, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> From: "David Rankin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > For what it's worth, here is more info than needed on smb and CIFS.
> >
> > http://ubiqx.org/cifs/index.html#Contents
>
> Just an update for you all...
>
> upcoming MDK 9.2 has cifs support in both kernel and
> Samba 2.2.x / 3.x ...
>
What will be the benefit kernel level support? You wouldn't need samba to 
connect?

> Thomas


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] dm in 9.2RC1 dying...

[Joeb]

Mark wrote:

Hi all,

Is anyone else seeing this happen? What I mean is the system boots just 
fine to the GUI login screen, but after I've logged out of my Xwindows 
session it doesn't remain in init 5, but drops to init 3, and the console 
login appears. In order to get the GUI login screen back I've got to drop 
to init 1 and then go to init 5.

 



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
 

There's already been a bug report submitted on it.  I think you can also 
get the dm back by logging in at the console prompt and typing: service 
-f dm   (you will need to be root or su to root).  After that, you won't 
get kicked out of the dm until you reboot and logout the first time.  
Hopefully, it will be fixed for RC2.

Joeb



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:

Okay, 

Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both ways. I've not 
even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total (without 
subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the fast! Not sure yet what 
else I'll dig up.

> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 11:27 am, David Rankin wrote:
> > Mates:
> >
> > Here is another clue that may help get to the bottom of this. Back in
> > the 7.2 days when Samba 2.0X, 2.1X was comming out, the slow transfer
> > issue appeared with Win98 transfers. The 2 gig limit was also there. The
> > slow transfer from win to mdk was discussed as a "packet fragmentation"
> > or "rabbit pellet packet fragmentation" problem by Civileme. The Samba
> > folks also worked the issue. The issue was evidently resolved for win98,
> > but the same type of problem could have reared its head again.
> >
> > I tried to do a archive search for this issue, but for some reason
> > the archive search daemon would not connect. Anyway, I would suggest an
> > expert archive search for "packet fragmentation" or "rabbit pellet" to
> > get the history of the issue. M$ may have changed smb just enough to
> > recreate this condition and the Samba folks may have some more work to
> > do.
>
> Very good point. I noticed an awful lot of 1514 frames. Let me go back and
> take another look see. I might have missed something.
>
> BAH... I'm going to do another trace. I'll make it more controlled. Using
> the exact same file so I can make a better comparison. I'm not seeing
> anything the jumps out at me. 1514 frames though. ?? I'll write back.
>
> > --
> > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > (936) 715-9333
> > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > --
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> >
> > > On Monday 01 September 2003 08:10 pm, Michael Viron wrote:
> > > > Seems like this is related to the stuff discussed in
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321169 and
> >
> > possibly
> >
> > > > in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321098 .
> > > >
> > > > You may also want to try running regedit to do the following:
> > > >
> > > > go to "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
> > > > Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace" in the registry
> > > >
> > > > remove {D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF} .
> > >
> > > First I apologize for not reporting what I found yesterday. I had
> > > already tried the top two things to no avail yesterday. I tried
> > > removing the above key and it made no difference at all. As we speak
> > > I'm transferring 285MB
> >
> > of
> >
> > > data from the Linux box to the XP box and it has been 8 minutes so far
> > > and
> >
> > my
> >
> > > guess is that it will take another 9 - 10 minutes. If I do it from my
> >
> > linux
> >
> > > server and copy it to the xp box, it will blast over in about 2 minutes
> > > or less!!
> > >
> > > > The above key instructs windows to look for scheduled tasks on the pc
> > > > in question (which may slow done browsing by at least 30s).
> > > >
> > > > Also take a look at
> >
> > http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Wind
> >ow s/Windows_XP/?tc=1
> >
> > > , which includes about a hundred windows xp related
> > >
> > > > sites of tips / tweaks / guides and howtos.
> > > >
> > > > Just some thoughts,
> > >
> > > Thanks a bunch Michael. I've started looking them over. As you know, it
> > > is somewhat like looking for a needle in a haystack. I'm home sick
> > > today, so I'll do some more "googling" to see if someone has come up
> > > with a "fix"
> >
> > for
> >
> > > this.
> > >
> > > If I forgot to mention, SP1 does NOT make a difference for my
> > > particular problem. Also, I'm using mdk 9.1 with out of the box Samba.
> > > Nothing "special". I'm running 100Bt Half duplex hub. XP to XP fast. XP
> > > to ME
> >
> > fast.
> >
> > > Linux to XP fast. XP to Linux slow. ??? This one has me
> > > stumped.
> >
> > What
> >
> > > is interesting is I swear when I was running older versions of
> >
> > Mandrake I
> >
> > > don't recall this slowness. So even though I've bashed XP, perhaps it
> > > has been premature. I just thought of this.
> > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Viron
> > > > Core Systems Group
> > > > Simple End User Linux
> > > >
> > > > At 04:30 PM 9/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:48 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > > > >> Greg Meyer wrote:
> > > > >> >On Monday 01 September 2003 03:13 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > > > >> >>I was the one who asked the question about slow transfers using
> >
> > Samba.
> >
> > > > >> >>I asked on this list and on the newbie list.  Still have not
>

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
>
> Okay,
>
> Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both ways. I've not
> even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total (without
> subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the fast! Not sure yet what
> else I'll dig up.

This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug up.

Fast transfer uses about

protocols

nbss1/4+ total
smb 1/4- total
tcp1/2 total



Slow transfers

nbss5/8 total
smb 1/16 total
tcp 1/3? total


Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some differences. 
The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer from XP window 
size of 10220. Linux is using 64240. 

Now is this enough for some clever fellow to tell how to modify Winders?

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[David Rankin]

See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157

--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax
--
- Original Message - 
From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`


> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
> >
> > Okay,
> >
> > Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both ways. I've
not
> > even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total (without
> > subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the fast! Not sure yet
what
> > else I'll dig up.
>
> This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug up.
>
> Fast transfer uses about
>
> protocols
>
> nbss 1/4+ total
> smb 1/4- total
> tcp1/2 total
>
>
>
> Slow transfers
>
> nbss 5/8 total
> smb 1/16 total
> tcp 1/3? total
>
>
> Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some
differences.
> The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer from XP
window
> size of 10220. Linux is using 64240.
>
> Now is this enough for some clever fellow to tell how to modify Winders?
>
>






> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
>
What is odd about this web site is that even though it says 2000/XP... 
virtually all the settings are specific to XP. XP doesn't have those key 
settings. ?? I doubt I want to add those. I can find no reference to window 
size on support.microsoft.com either. Odd. 

> --
> David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> 510 Ochiltree Street
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> (936) 715-9333
> (936) 715-9339 fax
> --
> - Original Message -
> From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
>
> > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay,
> > >
> > > Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both ways. I've
>
> not
>
> > > even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total (without
> > > subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the fast! Not sure yet
>
> what
>
> > > else I'll dig up.
> >
> > This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug up.
> >
> > Fast transfer uses about
> >
> > protocols
> >
> > nbss 1/4+ total
> > smb 1/4- total
> > tcp1/2 total
> >
> >
> >
> > Slow transfers
> >
> > nbss 5/8 total
> > smb 1/16 total
> > tcp 1/3? total
> >
> >
> > Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some
>
> differences.
>
> > The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer from XP
>
> window
>
> > size of 10220. Linux is using 64240.
> >
> > Now is this enough for some clever fellow to tell how to modify Winders?
>
> ---
>- 
>
> > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:26 pm, lorne wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
>
> What is odd about this web site is that even though it says 2000/XP...
> virtually all the settings are specific to XP. XP doesn't have those key
> settings. ?? I doubt I want to add those. I can find no reference to window
> size on support.microsoft.com either. Odd.
>
OOOPS!! I meant specific to 2000 NOT Xp. 
> > --
> > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > (936) 715-9333
> > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > --
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> >
> > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay,
> > > >
> > > > Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both ways.
> > > > I've
> >
> > not
> >
> > > > even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total (without
> > > > subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the fast! Not sure yet
> >
> > what
> >
> > > > else I'll dig up.
> > >
> > > This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug up.
> > >
> > > Fast transfer uses about
> > >
> > > protocols
> > >
> > > nbss 1/4+ total
> > > smb 1/4- total
> > > tcp1/2 total
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Slow transfers
> > >
> > > nbss 5/8 total
> > > smb 1/16 total
> > > tcp 1/3? total
> > >
> > >
> > > Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some
> >
> > differences.
> >
> > > The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer from XP
> >
> > window
> >
> > > size of 10220. Linux is using 64240.
> > >
> > > Now is this enough for some clever fellow to tell how to modify
> > > Winders?
> >
> > -
> >-- - 
> >
> > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:29 pm, lorne wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:26 pm, lorne wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > > See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
> >
I DID go to a web site to download tweaks. There was a little executable that 
did allow for increasing the window size. I've not dug back into the registry 
to see where it made the change, but it has indeed opened up the window size 
to 62420 now. So now the frame count is the same. That is the good news. The 
bad news it is just a slow. ??? frame count 9,000 roughly. 65 seconds to copy 
an 8mb file to linux. From linux to Xp about 5 seconds or less. It went too 
quickly. 

> > What is odd about this web site is that even though it says 2000/XP...
> > virtually all the settings are specific to XP. XP doesn't have those key
> > settings. ?? I doubt I want to add those. I can find no reference to
> > window size on support.microsoft.com either. Odd.
>
> OOOPS!! I meant specific to 2000 NOT Xp.
>
> > > --
> > > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> > > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> > > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > > (936) 715-9333
> > > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > > --
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay,
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both ways.
> > > > > I've
> > >
> > > not
> > >
> > > > > even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total
> > > > > (without subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the fast!
> > > > > Not sure yet
> > >
> > > what
> > >
> > > > > else I'll dig up.
> > > >
> > > > This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug up.
> > > >
> > > > Fast transfer uses about
> > > >
> > > > protocols
> > > >
> > > > nbss 1/4+ total
> > > > smb 1/4- total
> > > > tcp1/2 total
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Slow transfers
> > > >
> > > > nbss 5/8 total
> > > > smb 1/16 total
> > > > tcp 1/3? total
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some
> > >
> > > differences.
> > >
> > > > The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer from
> > > > XP
> > >
> > > window
> > >
> > > > size of 10220. Linux is using 64240.
> > > >
> > > > Now is this enough for some clever fellow to tell how to modify
> > > > Winders?
> > >
> > > ---
> > >-- -- - 
> > >
> > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] realtek rtl8180 wlan card -- drivers/modules.

[James Sparenberg]

On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 01:23, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 04:12, James Sparenberg wrote:
> 
> >
> > 2 questions
> >
> > 1.   Do you know what the driver should be.
> 
> No not really, I'm supposing (going by the readme that comes with the realtek 
> download) the module is rtl8180_24x.o which is part of the download.
> if it doesn't work as delivered, one is suggested to compile one's own.
> 

HarM 


   Seems that there is a known bug in the sourcecode (why it doesn't
want to build.)   Someone clued me into a howto that might get you going
and get the modules to build.

http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Wireless-Link-sys-WPC11/x101.html

Thanks to some of the guys over on Debian.  Seems this card is to say
the least a PITA.  


Once done this should be what you need in /etc/pcmcia/config

card "realtek", "Rtl8180"
   manfid 0x, 0x024c
   bind "rtl8180_24x"


James



> 
> >
> > 2.   Can you post the full output of  the command [prompt]# cardctl
> > ident
> 
> # cardctl ident
> Socket 0
>   product info: "realtek", "Rtl8180"
>   manfid: 0x, 0x024c
>   function: 6 (network)
> 
> # cat /proc/ioports (only the relevant parts)
> ..
> 0cf8-0cff : PCI conf1
> 4000-40ff : PCI CardBus #01
>   4000-40ff : PCI device 10ec:8180
> 4400-40ff : PCI CardBus #01
> 
> #cat /proc/pci (again only the relevant part)
> 
> ..
> Bus 1, device 0, function 0:
>   Ethernet controller: PCI device 10ec:8180 (rev 32).
>   IRQ 9.
>   Master Capable. No bursts. Min Gnt=32.Max Lat=64.
>   I/O at 0x4000 [0x40ff].
>   Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0x1080 [0x108001ff].
> 
> > I've been having luck of late with creating additions to the
> > /etc/pcmcia/config file.  I'd like to see if I can make it 3 for 3.
> 
> I used to be able to do that fairly off-hand for my Belkin card (not wlan!) 
> but since kernel 2.4.x and some cardbus quirks I shoved 'em in a drawer and 
> used a Xircom instead. But now theres wlan to tempt me!!
>  
> There is a mini howto for the linksys WPC11 card ( 
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/other-formats/html_single/Wireless-Link-sys-WPC11.html
> ) which uses the same 8180 chips as this "sweex" thing, that mentions using 
> Orinoco_cs as driver instead of wavelan_cs or wvlan_cs on  Redhat.
> 
> They also mention that there is a difference between Rtl8180 and Rtl8180L and 
> that the 8180 download from Realtek is meant for the latter.
> 
> All this info was starting to puzzle me, hence my asking if somebody else had 
> already taken this road and could warn me of any pitfalls.
> 
> I tend to be overly cautious when entering unknown territory (especially with 
> machines that can't be missed) and I've no experience whatso ever with wlan, 
> yet.


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Mandrake web site

[Carroll Grigsby]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 10:54 am, Mark wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is it me or has anyone else noticed that its next to impossible to
> navigate the Mandrake website. I've been trying unsuccessfully to get to
> the mailing list archives now for about an hour and either get a
> connection denied back from their web server, or it just sits there and
> goes nowhere.


Mark:
It's not just you, Mark. I expect that it is related to Mandrake's server 
relocation project that is the subject of an August 7 article on the Mandrake 
home page, which warned that some temporary outages could be expected. I know 
that sometime in early August the archives became unavailable for a few days. 
It looks like they pulled the plug again. FWIW, I couldn't get into the Club 
early yesterday, but it was OK last night. Then this morning the main site 
was unavailable, but now that works, too. I just checked the newbie archive, 
and it worked just fine (8:30 pm EDT).

-- cmg


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[David Rankin]

Lorne

You got me?? Beyond some tangential knowledge of the past packet
fragmentation issue and the CIFS protocol, I don't have any rabbits to pull
out of my hat. As far as smb is concerned it seems M$'s implementation of
smb(CIFS) is new and unique to XP/2000. I suspect in implementing CIFS for
XP, M$ has only loosely followed the RFC and has done so by design. The site
I posted earlier but can't find now, the "ubhix" something like that
suggests that the CIFS variety of smb has done just that.

I don't have a test machine to confirm what you are seeing, but it sounds
identical to the samba 2.07 problem that gave win98 fits.

Another site that looks promising is
http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/samba/samba-optimize.html See 7.2 Socket
Options. You may be able to either rule in or rule out the fragmentation
issue by follow the test specified.

Good luck.

--
David C. Rankin
Rankin * Bertin, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax

For those in Texas - Vote NO to prop 12 on September 13th. They're your
constitutional rights. You can either vote NO to keep them or vote yes (or
do nothing) and let the insurers and HMO's take them away in the name of
corporate greed. Your choice.

- Original Message - 
From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`


> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:29 pm, lorne wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:26 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > > > See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
> > >
> I DID go to a web site to download tweaks. There was a little executable
that
> did allow for increasing the window size. I've not dug back into the
registry
> to see where it made the change, but it has indeed opened up the window
size
> to 62420 now. So now the frame count is the same. That is the good news.
The
> bad news it is just a slow. ??? frame count 9,000 roughly. 65 seconds to
copy
> an 8mb file to linux. From linux to Xp about 5 seconds or less. It went
too
> quickly.
>
> > > What is odd about this web site is that even though it says 2000/XP...
> > > virtually all the settings are specific to XP. XP doesn't have those
key
> > > settings. ?? I doubt I want to add those. I can find no reference to
> > > window size on support.microsoft.com either. Odd.
> >
> > OOOPS!! I meant specific to 2000 NOT Xp.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> > > > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> > > > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > > > (936) 715-9333
> > > > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > > > --
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both
ways.
> > > > > > I've
> > > >
> > > > not
> > > >
> > > > > > even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total
> > > > > > (without subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the
fast!
> > > > > > Not sure yet
> > > >
> > > > what
> > > >
> > > > > > else I'll dig up.
> > > > >
> > > > > This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fast transfer uses about
> > > > >
> > > > > protocols
> > > > >
> > > > > nbss 1/4+ total
> > > > > smb 1/4- total
> > > > > tcp1/2 total
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Slow transfers
> > > > >
> > > > > nbss 5/8 total
> > > > > smb 1/16 total
> > > > > tcp 1/3? total
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some
> > > >
> > > > differences.
> > > >
> > > > > The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer
from
> > > > > XP
> > > >
> > > > window
> > > >
> > > > > size of 10220. Linux is using 64240.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now is this enough for some clever fellow to tell how to modify
> > > > > Winders?
> > > >
> > >
> ---
> > > >-- -- - 
> > > >
> > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> > > > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>
>
>






> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
>


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] dm in 9.2RC1 dying...

[Greg Meyer]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 04:44 pm, Mark wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Is anyone else seeing this happen? What I mean is the system boots just 
> fine to the GUI login screen, but after I've logged out of my Xwindows 
> session it doesn't remain in init 5, but drops to init 3, and the console 
> login appears. In order to get the GUI login screen back I've got to drop 
> to init 1 and then go to init 5.
> 
Known bug that has actually been fixed already I think, at least I have not 
experienced it since I urpmi'd my cooker box on Sunday.
-- 
/g

"Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book, inside
a dog it's too dark to read" -Groucho Marx

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] forgotten knowledge...

[Michael Noble]

To combine multiple files into one just do the following:

cat file1 file2 file3  >> newfile

Mile

Anne Wilson wrote:

On Monday 01 Sep 2003 6:18 pm, Mark wrote:
 

Hi List,

I've forgotten how to do something that I used to know how to do.
That is, using cat to combine a list of files into one single file.
The problem:
the list of files below, I would like to combine into just one
file. les_csharp_12_p1.pdf
les_csharp_12_p2.pdf
les_csharp_12_p3.pdf
les_csharp_12_p4.pdf
les_csharp_12_p5.pdf
les_csharp_12_p6.pdf
les_csharp_12_p7.pdf
I would like the contents of the above list of files to appear in
this file: CSharp_LESSON12.pdf
Solution: ???

Mark
   

Hi, Mark.  I've been following this, and it doesn't look promising, so 
I wonder if it's time for a dirty solution.  Could you not pdf2ps all 
the files, open them in SOWriter, then cut and paste into one file, 
save that as a new pdf?

I know it's not elegant, but it might work.

Anne
 



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
 



Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] dm in 9.2RC1 dying...

[Mark]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joeb wrote:

> Mark wrote:
> 
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Is anyone else seeing this happen? What I mean is the system boots just 
> >fine to the GUI login screen, but after I've logged out of my Xwindows 
> >session it doesn't remain in init 5, but drops to init 3, and the console 
> >login appears. In order to get the GUI login screen back I've got to drop 
> >to init 1 and then go to init 5.
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
> >Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
> >  
> >
> There's already been a bug report submitted on it.  I think you can also 
> get the dm back by logging in at the console prompt and typing: service 
> -f dm   (you will need to be root or su to root).  After that, you won't 
> get kicked out of the dm until you reboot and logout the first time.  
> Hopefully, it will be fixed for RC2.
> 
> 
> Joeb
> 

Awesome...thanks Joeb. By the way...when is the scheduled release date of 
RC2? 

- -- 
Mark

"If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?"
- ---
Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R)
Linux User Since 1996
Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1
ICQ# 27816299
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/

iD8DBQE/VVPnJyqY2X3sWG8RAvLOAKCJc0uwnDACLTEvQ+exMjl3XWIWZgCfRS+r
6pqqk6wMrdIJAODe0BAYgpw=
=0rmP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

[expert] connect with ssh to my box

[elPunishar]

hello everybody,

i have my mdk9.1 box security level set on "standard".
now, i want to be able to connect with ssh or telnet to this box from another 
one in my lan.
the connections are refused...
where do i have to make the changes to allow this ?

tnx & greetings,
stu

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] connect with ssh to my box

[Avi Schwartz]

elPunishar wrote:

hello everybody,

i have my mdk9.1 box security level set on "standard".
now, i want to be able to connect with ssh or telnet to this box from another 
one in my lan.
the connections are refused...
where do i have to make the changes to allow this ?
 

Assuming that sshd is running on your box, you may need to edit 
/etc/hosts.allow and add the line

sshd:ALL

This will allow all external hosts to connect via ssh.

Avi


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 06:23 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> Lorne
>
> You got me?? Beyond some tangential knowledge of the past packet
> fragmentation issue and the CIFS protocol, I don't have any rabbits to pull
> out of my hat. As far as smb is concerned it seems M$'s implementation of
> smb(CIFS) is new and unique to XP/2000. I suspect in implementing CIFS for
> XP, M$ has only loosely followed the RFC and has done so by design. The
> site I posted earlier but can't find now, the "ubhix" something like
> that suggests that the CIFS variety of smb has done just that.
>
I've been suspicious of a change in the way XP does business, but can't put my 
finger on it. I may take my traces to an Extreme engineer and see if he can 
lay his finger on it. 

> I don't have a test machine to confirm what you are seeing, but it sounds
> identical to the samba 2.07 problem that gave win98 fits.
>
> Another site that looks promising is
> http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/samba/samba-optimize.html See 7.2 Socket
> Options. You may be able to either rule in or rule out the fragmentation
> issue by follow the test specified.
>
I am not seeing fragmentation in the trace. It does do things slightly 
differently, but I've had a hard time really dissecting it today. I'm going 
to read and tinker with the above suggestions I think. For now, I'll just 
have to transfer from linux to xp. I use my mdk box more often anyhow. :)
I have the bigger drives in the XP box. Guess I'll just use the XP box for 
storage. hahaha

> Good luck.
>
> --
> David C. Rankin
> Rankin * Bertin, PLLC
> 510 Ochiltree Street
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> (936) 715-9333
> (936) 715-9339 fax
>
> For those in Texas - Vote NO to prop 12 on September 13th. They're your
> constitutional rights. You can either vote NO to keep them or vote yes (or
> do nothing) and let the insurers and HMO's take them away in the name of
> corporate greed. Your choice.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
>
> > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:29 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:26 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > > > > See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
> >
> > I DID go to a web site to download tweaks. There was a little executable
>
> that
>
> > did allow for increasing the window size. I've not dug back into the
>
> registry
>
> > to see where it made the change, but it has indeed opened up the window
>
> size
>
> > to 62420 now. So now the frame count is the same. That is the good news.
>
> The
>
> > bad news it is just a slow. ??? frame count 9,000 roughly. 65 seconds to
>
> copy
>
> > an 8mb file to linux. From linux to Xp about 5 seconds or less. It went
>
> too
>
> > quickly.
> >
> > > > What is odd about this web site is that even though it says
> > > > 2000/XP... virtually all the settings are specific to XP. XP doesn't
> > > > have those
>
> key
>
> > > > settings. ?? I doubt I want to add those. I can find no reference to
> > > > window size on support.microsoft.com either. Odd.
> > >
> > > OOOPS!! I meant specific to 2000 NOT Xp.
> > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> > > > > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> > > > > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > > > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > > > > (936) 715-9333
> > > > > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > > > > --
> > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe a small breakthrough. I transfered the same file both
>
> ways.
>
> > > > > > > I've
> > > > >
> > > > > not
> > > > >
> > > > > > > even analyzed it yet, but there is 25% more frames total
> > > > > > > (without subtracting arps or anything) in the slow than the
>
> fast!
>
> > > > > > > Not sure yet
> > > > >
> > > > > what
> > > > >
> > > > > > > else I'll dig up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This may prove useful after all. Here is what I've further dug
> > > > > > up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fast transfer uses about
> > > > > >
> > > > > > protocols
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nbss 1/4+ total
> > > > > > smb 1/4- total
> > > > > > tcp1/2 total
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Slow transfers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nbss 5/8 total
> > > > > > smb 1/16 total
> > > > > > tcp 1/3? total
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Very rough and probably don't add up to 100% but definately some
> > > > >
> > > > > differences.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The thing that just popped up at me was that the slow transfer
>
> from
>
> > > > 

Re: [expert] connect with ssh to my box

[HaywireMac]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 04:14:18 +0200
elPunishar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:

> i have my mdk9.1 box security level set on "standard".
> now, i want to be able to connect with ssh or telnet to this box from
> another one in my lan.
> the connections are refused...
> where do i have to make the changes to allow this ?

what command are you using to connect? you should be able to connect by
default, unless perhaps shorewall is running and blocking the ssh port.

-- 
HaywireMac
Registered Linux user #282046
Homepage: nodex.sytes.net
++
Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org
++
You can't mend a wristwatch while falling from an airplane.

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] connect with ssh to my box

[John Drouhard]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 04:14:18 +0200
elPunishar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> hello everybody,
> 
> i have my mdk9.1 box security level set on "standard".
> now, i want to be able to connect with ssh or telnet to this box from
> another one in my lan.
> the connections are refused...
> where do i have to make the changes to allow this ?
> 
> tnx & greetings,
> stu

You probably havent installed sshd. In a terminal, become root by typing
su and then the root password. Then type urpmi openssh-server

That will install the ssh server that will allow you to connect to
another computer in the LAN via ssh.

John Drouhard

> 


-- 
Tue Sep  2 21:53:06 CDT 2003
-
They told me to install Windows 98 or better, so I installed Linux.
Registered Linux User # 315649
Registered Machine # 201001

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] forgotten knowledge...

[Mark]

> Anne Wilson wrote:
> 
> >Hi, Mark.  I've been following this, and it doesn't look promising, so 
> >I wonder if it's time for a dirty solution.  Could you not pdf2ps all 
> >the files, open them in SOWriter, then cut and paste into one file, 
> >save that as a new pdf?
> >
> >I know it's not elegant, but it might work.
> >
> >Anne

Hi Anne,

I had thought about that. but then I decided not to do it that way cause 
I'd end up having to edit and clean up too much. So I chose the try the 
elegant lazy method. as it turns out when I used "cat" do combine the 
files all I got was the first page and a wee bit of the last page and that 
was all. don't know what I did wrong. 

-- 
Mark

"If necessity is the mother of invention, then who's the father?"
---
Paid for by Penguins against modern appliances(R)
Linux User Since 1996
Powered by Mandrake Linux 8.2 & 9.1
ICQ# 27816299

Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[David Rankin]

Well, you're right about there being something suspicious about the way XP
does business. Browsing win98 clients is just slow as sh you know.
That's even after the registry tweaks that are supposed to fix the browse
problem. Secondly, MS crippled XP to allow no more than 5 simo network
connections rendering it useless as an impromptu file server. I have XP pro
at home, but it is also on the same box as linux rendering it useless to
test the file transfer issue. There is an answer somewhere...and
let me know when you find out what it is.

--
David C. Rankin
Rankin * Bertin, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax

- Original Message - 
From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`


> On Tuesday 02 September 2003 06:23 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > Lorne
> >
> > You got me?? Beyond some tangential knowledge of the past packet
> > fragmentation issue and the CIFS protocol, I don't have any rabbits to
pull
> > out of my hat. As far as smb is concerned it seems M$'s implementation
of
> > smb(CIFS) is new and unique to XP/2000. I suspect in implementing CIFS
for
> > XP, M$ has only loosely followed the RFC and has done so by design. The
> > site I posted earlier but can't find now, the "ubhix" something like
> > that suggests that the CIFS variety of smb has done just that.
> >
> I've been suspicious of a change in the way XP does business, but can't
put my
> finger on it. I may take my traces to an Extreme engineer and see if he
can
> lay his finger on it.
>
> > I don't have a test machine to confirm what you are seeing, but it
sounds
> > identical to the samba 2.07 problem that gave win98 fits.
> >
> > Another site that looks promising is
> > http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/samba/samba-optimize.html See 7.2 Socket
> > Options. You may be able to either rule in or rule out the fragmentation
> > issue by follow the test specified.
> >
> I am not seeing fragmentation in the trace. It does do things slightly
> differently, but I've had a hard time really dissecting it today. I'm
going
> to read and tinker with the above suggestions I think. For now, I'll just
> have to transfer from linux to xp. I use my mdk box more often anyhow. :)
> I have the bigger drives in the XP box. Guess I'll just use the XP box for
> storage. hahaha
>
> > Good luck.
> >
> > --
> > David C. Rankin
> > Rankin * Bertin, PLLC
> > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > (936) 715-9333
> > (936) 715-9339 fax
> >
> > For those in Texas - Vote NO to prop 12 on September 13th. They're your
> > constitutional rights. You can either vote NO to keep them or vote yes
(or
> > do nothing) and let the insurers and HMO's take them away in the name of
> > corporate greed. Your choice.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:52 PM
> > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> >
> > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:29 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:26 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > > > > > See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
> > >
> > > I DID go to a web site to download tweaks. There was a little
executable
> >
> > that
> >
> > > did allow for increasing the window size. I've not dug back into the
> >
> > registry
> >
> > > to see where it made the change, but it has indeed opened up the
window
> >
> > size
> >
> > > to 62420 now. So now the frame count is the same. That is the good
news.
> >
> > The
> >
> > > bad news it is just a slow. ??? frame count 9,000 roughly. 65 seconds
to
> >
> > copy
> >
> > > an 8mb file to linux. From linux to Xp about 5 seconds or less. It
went
> >
> > too
> >
> > > quickly.
> > >
> > > > > What is odd about this web site is that even though it says
> > > > > 2000/XP... virtually all the settings are specific to XP. XP
doesn't
> > > > > have those
> >
> > key
> >
> > > > > settings. ?? I doubt I want to add those. I can find no reference
to
> > > > > window size on support.microsoft.com either. Odd.
> > > >
> > > > OOOPS!! I meant specific to 2000 NOT Xp.
> > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> > > > > > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> > > > > > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > > > > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > > > > > (936) 715-9333
> > > > > > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:26 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:04 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 01:46 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Okay,
> > > > > > 

Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`

[lorne]

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 08:09 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> Well, you're right about there being something suspicious about the way XP
> does business. Browsing win98 clients is just slow as sh you know.
> That's even after the registry tweaks that are supposed to fix the browse
> problem. Secondly, MS crippled XP to allow no more than 5 simo network
> connections rendering it useless as an impromptu file server. I have XP pro
> at home, but it is also on the same box as linux rendering it useless to
> test the file transfer issue. There is an answer
> somewhere...and let me know when you find out what it is.
>
Unfortunately with 2 young children, my wife working on her doctorate and both 
of us working full time jobs, it will be one of those things that will 
probably  get solved by some clever fellows out there, but I am going to send 
this trace to a real sharp engineer and see if he can decode it more than my 
limited abilities. I'll let everyone know if he figures it out.

I can say it only encourages me more to complete the transformation away from 
uncle billie and his gang of thieves.  I know... I make good money fixing 
their s#$t, and we will probaby never be 'rid' of them but  I ended up 
setting up two physical boxes (I hate the slow herky jerky of VMware) with a 
KVM switch. I can switch back and forth between XP and Mdk. 

I really appreciate everyones ideas. Maybe a microsoft engineer will pop in 
here an decode this mystery for us. hahahah

> --
> David C. Rankin
> Rankin * Bertin, PLLC
> 510 Ochiltree Street
> Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> (936) 715-9333
> (936) 715-9339 fax
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
>
> > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 06:23 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > > Lorne
> > >
> > > You got me?? Beyond some tangential knowledge of the past packet
> > > fragmentation issue and the CIFS protocol, I don't have any rabbits to
>
> pull
>
> > > out of my hat. As far as smb is concerned it seems M$'s implementation
>
> of
>
> > > smb(CIFS) is new and unique to XP/2000. I suspect in implementing CIFS
>
> for
>
> > > XP, M$ has only loosely followed the RFC and has done so by design. The
> > > site I posted earlier but can't find now, the "ubhix" something
> > > like that suggests that the CIFS variety of smb has done just that.
> >
> > I've been suspicious of a change in the way XP does business, but can't
>
> put my
>
> > finger on it. I may take my traces to an Extreme engineer and see if he
>
> can
>
> > lay his finger on it.
> >
> > > I don't have a test machine to confirm what you are seeing, but it
>
> sounds
>
> > > identical to the samba 2.07 problem that gave win98 fits.
> > >
> > > Another site that looks promising is
> > > http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/samba/samba-optimize.html See 7.2 Socket
> > > Options. You may be able to either rule in or rule out the
> > > fragmentation issue by follow the test specified.
> >
> > I am not seeing fragmentation in the trace. It does do things slightly
> > differently, but I've had a hard time really dissecting it today. I'm
>
> going
>
> > to read and tinker with the above suggestions I think. For now, I'll just
> > have to transfer from linux to xp. I use my mdk box more often anyhow. :)
> > I have the bigger drives in the XP box. Guess I'll just use the XP box
> > for storage. hahaha
> >
> > > Good luck.
> > >
> > > --
> > > David C. Rankin
> > > Rankin * Bertin, PLLC
> > > 510 Ochiltree Street
> > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > > (936) 715-9333
> > > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > >
> > > For those in Texas - Vote NO to prop 12 on September 13th. They're your
> > > constitutional rights. You can either vote NO to keep them or vote yes
>
> (or
>
> > > do nothing) and let the insurers and HMO's take them away in the name
> > > of corporate greed. Your choice.
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "lorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:52 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [expert] Slow SMB file transfers to XP`
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:29 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:26 pm, lorne wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday 02 September 2003 02:40 pm, David Rankin wrote:
> > > > > > > See http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
> > > >
> > > > I DID go to a web site to download tweaks. There was a little
>
> executable
>
> > > that
> > >
> > > > did allow for increasing the window size. I've not dug back into the
> > >
> > > registry
> > >
> > > > to see where it made the change, but it has indeed opened up the
>
> window
>
> > > size
> > >
> > > > to 62420 now. So now the frame count is the same. That is the good
>
> news.
>
> > > The
> > >
> > > > bad news it is just a slow. ??? frame count 9,000 roughly. 65 seconds
>
> to
>
> > > copy
> > >
> > > > an 8m

[expert] procmail question

[Jack Coates]

This ought be easy, but I'm tired and dense.

Some of the lists I'm on are starting to use SpamAssassin to tag mail
before it goes out. I don't want to rescan these mails, so I'm trying to
add a rule to my "too big for spamc" rule:

~/.procmailrc
...
# Anti-spam measures.
# SpamAssassin rule
:0fw
* < 256000
* !^X-Spam-Flag: YES
| /usr/bin/spamc

# Sometimes MS users will send attachments hidden inside of TNEF files.
# This script translates those back to regular MIME attachments.
:0fw
| /usr/local/bin/tnefclean.pl -f

Unfortunately, when I forward an old spam back to myself, I can see that
spamassassin is still running on it. Did I make some stupid mistake on
the rule or should I be looking elsewhere?

TIA,
-- 
Jack Coates
Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...


Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? 
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com