[Leaf-user] Re: [LRP] pppoe sharing
Carlos: Take a look at Dachstein 1.0.2 with PPPoE from Kenneth Hadley http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/khadley You will need Windows to extract the file and create a 1680k floppy. Get a Pentium or better machine, two ethernet cards, and a 10/100 switch. Then you can hook up several machines to the machine running Dachstein. This is what I have done here in my home. Now I can share my PPPoE connection with my desktop and my notebook computers. Robert Chambers CaMiX CaMiX wrote: > Ok, can anyone point me in the right direction in what I would need in > order to get an incoming pppoe connection? I've look at several sites > and I really don't know what I need in order to get a incoming pppoe > connection. What I want to do is share my pppoe conncetion with > serveral other systems and that's it. I also wouldn't mind being able > to ssh into the box as well. I know to ssh I need sshd.lrp but I'll > tackle that next after I get the connection working and shared but any > advice on that would also be appreciated. > > Thanx, > CaRLoS > > > _ > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > > ___ > linux-router maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linuxrouter.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-router > > ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Re: [Leaf-user] Re: LRP PPPoE
Yes, I would like to get the top.lrp package. I have not yet had the time to build up development machine for LRP, so I cannot compile the package myself. I am using ISA nic-cards on the 486-machine, (and not even good ones, cheap ne2000 clones), but I think I was not clear enough on my post; at the moment I do not believe the LRP-machine is a bottleneck for me (but would like to find out if it actually is, because I have a bunch of P100-P133 machines with PCI bus on the closet). I have tried, though briefly, to test my connection without the 486, just used PPPoE client on my Linux box and the results were not any better. Then again, my ADSL-link is provided by NTT, so nobody expects them to deliver what they promise... Thanks, /mek ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Re: [Leaf-user] Re: LRP PPPoE
with top I will send you a top.lrp package if you wish to test your CPU usage..my tests are subjective untill I get more data Kenneth Hadley PC / Network Specialist McCormick Selph Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Mika Kouhia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Re: LRP PPPoE > >>causes a 486 computer to bog down and not be able to handle the DSL >>connection with speeds over 500k. > > How have you been monitoring the CPU usage? With top or something else? > > I have been running your pppoe-image now for a couple of weeks, my connection > is rated 1.5M/512k, but I have been able to get only something like 800k/400k > out of it. > > Anyway, my LRP-machine is 486DX2-66 with 32M and it does not seem to be having > any problems with that kind of traffic. But then, without means to actually > measure the CPU load I would not probably knew even if it was having problems... > > /mek > > > > ___ > Leaf-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
RE: [Leaf-user] Re: LRP PPPoE
Does your PC have PCI bus and you are using PCI nics? If not then your ISA bus can be the actual bottleneck... If you can try to use a Pentium with PCI network card and check back the speeds. -Original Message- From: Mika Kouhia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 5:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] Re: LRP PPPoE >causes a 486 computer to bog down and not be able to handle the DSL >connection with speeds over 500k. How have you been monitoring the CPU usage? With top or something else? I have been running your pppoe-image now for a couple of weeks, my connection is rated 1.5M/512k, but I have been able to get only something like 800k/400k out of it. Anyway, my LRP-machine is 486DX2-66 with 32M and it does not seem to be having any problems with that kind of traffic. But then, without means to actually measure the CPU load I would not probably knew even if it was having problems... /mek ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
Re: [Leaf-user] Re: LRP PPPoE
>causes a 486 computer to bog down and not be able to handle the DSL >connection with speeds over 500k. How have you been monitoring the CPU usage? With top or something else? I have been running your pppoe-image now for a couple of weeks, my connection is rated 1.5M/512k, but I have been able to get only something like 800k/400k out of it. Anyway, my LRP-machine is 486DX2-66 with 32M and it does not seem to be having any problems with that kind of traffic. But then, without means to actually measure the CPU load I would not probably knew even if it was having problems... /mek ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
[Leaf-user] Re: LRP PPPoE
Well you may be working around in circles, LEAF (formally a subset of LRP) uses a specially patched kernel ...this patch is NOT part of the standard Linux kernel that Linus releases in the kernelsthis is also where a normal kernel dies with a unable to mount root error. LEAF kernels have been ported from kernels 2.2.16, 2.2.18, and 2.2.19, with some experimental (and unrecommended for now) 2.4.x kernels I would recommend to you two things 1) Stick with the 2.2.16 kernel available from either my image or if you need IDE support from http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/cstein/files/kernels/2.2.16-1/ 2) Seriously think about using a computer that's at least twice as fast as that poor 486sx, I use a PacificBell ADSL connection that is rated (and surprisingly I can get) 1.5mbit down and 124k up, but ive found that the overhead in converting PPP packets to Ethernet packets (which is what PPPoE does) causes a 486 computer to bog down and not be able to handle the DSL connection with speeds over 500k. A perfect example is that my LEAF box running my image is running on a AMD586-133 (which is just a tad faster than a Pentium75) bogs down and hits 75% to 100% cpu usage with about 1.1mbit in transfers goingin fact im planning on replacing it with a Pentium200 soon... Of course these are from my tests and probably vary between ISP's PPPoE was designed as a useful protocol for the ISP's and not for the users -Kenneth Hadley - Original Message - From: "Zegane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:38 AM Subject: LRP PPPoE > Hello, > > I have a few questions about the LRP pppoe images you provided...no, there > is nothing wrong with them. > Here is the story: > I'm trying to make my home network a gateway. So I searched the internet > about a linux based gateway, that supports pppoe and nat. So I found LRP and > your images. Now i did not want to go rushing out to find a computer to fit > my needs. I thought that I'll first give a try to what I have. I have a > 486SX with 8MB ram. I don't know if that is enough. Anyway the problem is > that your images do not have math emulation compiled in the kernel. So I > decided to roll my own. First I tried with the 2.4.5 kernel (it has > netfilter and all...). But I got a strange error (Something like "fatfs: > bogus logical sector size 0"). I searched the net and found out that it had > been an error in the 2.4.5-pre5 kernel. I did not know what version I had > downloaded, so I downloaded a fixed version. But that gave me the same > message. Now I thought that maybe it is because I left so many things out in > compiling the kernel to get it to fit on the disk (I even left the /proc fs > out). So I tried with 2.2.16. Compiled it with more options. Now I get the > same error...but it is expressed a little differently. Anyway it ends always > the same. The kernel is panicking, because it can not mount root fs. > The error with 2.2.16 is: > > RAMDISK:Compressed image found at block 0 > [MS-DOS FS Rel.12, FAT 0, check=n, conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=022,bmap] > [me=0x0,cs=0,#f=0,fs=0,fl=0,ds=0,de=0,data=0,se=0,ts=0,ls=0,rc=0,fc=42949672 > 95] > Transaction block size =512 > UMSDOS: msdos_read_super failed, mount aborted. > [MS-DOS FS Rel.12, FAT 0, check=n, conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=022,bmap] > [me=0x0,cs=0,#f=0,fs=0,fl=0,ds=0,de=0,data=0,se=0,ts=0,ls=0,rc=0,fc=42949672 > 95] > Transaction block size =512 > [MS-DOS FS Rel.12, FAT 0, check=n, conv=b,uid=0,gid=0,umask=022,bmap] > [me=0x0,cs=0,#f=0,fs=0,fl=0,ds=0,de=0,data=0,se=0,ts=0,ls=0,rc=0,fc=42949672 > 95] > Transaction block size =512 > Kernel panic:VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 01:00 > > And with 2.4.5 it is: > > MSDOS: Hardware sector size is 1024 > fatfs: bogus cluster size > Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 01:00 > > The problem can not be the disk. Because I tried with your original image > (except...I took the dhcpd and weblet out, and decreased the ramdisk size > for testing)...and it worked just fine. > Can you tell me what is wrong? > If you can not, then maybe you can tell me what kernel you used (where did > you download it from). And with what options did you compile it. How in the > world did you get it so small. When I compiled my 2.2.16 with minimum > options, I got a bzImage with the size of 510Kb. > > Thanks in advance, > > Zegane > > PS. I have one more question. Too see if this messing around with floppies > is really worth all the work. If I do not use my HD, can I shut down the > power fan? > ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
