Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] Slightly Off-Topic: MacOS as server or Linux? (tulip driver notice)
From: Jeff Wiegley (jeff@w3-design.com)
Date: Mon Nov 24 1997 - 13:29:26 EST
The company I worked with went with an Intel/Linux platform for all
our file sharing plans and we haven't looked back. We've been running
problem free for 14 days now. Haven't had to reboot the machine or
restart the file sharing servers netatalk or samba except to add
printers.
The only reason we rebooted the machine 14 days ago was to recompile
a kernel and to recompile/add proper directory permission handling in
netatalk.
So now the bad news...
Don't bet on the DEC tulip cards. They are *great* cards and they
seem to work perfectly *except* with netatalk. Even Donald Beckers
newest tulip drivers do not seem to work correctly with netatalk.
I had kernel v2.0.29 + ISS patches + donald newest tulip driver and
nbplkup would show *only* the netatalkk servers it would not see
all the other mac object on the network.
Currently we have no fix for this except to use the DEC-4X5 driver;
a solution I am not very happy with because I'm sure this driver
is lame compared to the tulip driver for operating tulip cards.
oh yea... the tulip.c driver only seemed to fail for us on the
21140chip cards (the 10/100 cards) the 21040(10base-T) card I have
in another machine works fine with netatalk and the latest tulip
drivers.
ifconfig ... allmulti
or
ifconfig ... multicast
does not fix the problem either.
If anybody has a fix for the tulip 10/100 cards and netatalk I'ld
love to hear it.
- Jeff
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> Oliver Wrede wrote:
>
> > My current opinion is, that if there is someone, who can
> > handle the Linux box, we can use the money to buy a bulk
> > Intel machine with huge diskspace (mybe a RAID disk) and
> > best-of backup devices.
>
> As long as you don't buy 3com cards with it.
>
> I had to go back to NT server after spending a whole week trying to
> get netatalk with IP (from ftp://ftp.u.washington.edu/pub/user-supported/asun/)
> running at 100Mb/s (it ran fine with 10Mb/s, about 1.5 times faster than NT
> without
> IP support and more than twice as fast as plain ethertalk between Mac boxes.
> We could have used it at 10 Mb/s and still be better off than we are now but
> we had already bought a 100Mb/s hub and our 10Mb/s hub was full ;(
>
> Now we get throughput of about 900kb/sek from appletalk and NT server running
> 100Mb/s
> while it used to be over 1000 using IP /linux/10Mb/s. And it was much snappier
> too - better
> reaction times when clicking a disk icon and so on.
>
> As I found out later by joining the linux-vortex-bug mailing list, there are
> severe
> problems with 3com 100Mb/s cards after merging the drivers.
>
> There are reports that DEC Tulip based cards (for example from D-Link) are
> rock-stable and fast.
> I'm going toi give it another try when I have received mine.
>
> I did not suspect the cards at first, as I had had very good experience with
> them from the
> times when the driver was a separate one called boomerang.
>
> > Is there any argument against this? Should we better buy
> > a MacOS machine as server and wait for Rhapsody? Could
> > we plan to switch to Rhapsody on the intel machine later?
>
> Waiting is always a safe plan ;)
>
> > What would you do with if you had - say - $30,000 left
> > to invest?
>
> It's way too much <grin>
>
> Hannu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:28:16 EST