Slow NT server copying
Tony Green(tonygreen[at]mindspring.com)
WinMac Digest #427 - Friday, October 1, 1999
OneList
Subject: OneList
>Who you get to moderate the list (if anyone) is up to you, but I would
A person at my institution is convinced that OneList distributes/sells
- Hank
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: seeking advice/resources for a *new*
I'm going to second what Dan said, and add a few things.
If you run printing through ASIP, go with LPR if possible, as it is much
Put Retrospect on it's own Mac, it doesn't have to be a new one, you just
For *any* server, I'd start with 128MB RAM as a base, and go up from there.
For a business...cable modems bad, shared access bad, your own line good.
> From: "Daniel L. Schwartz" <expresso@snip.net>
Subject: Re: seeking advice/resources for a *new* mac-based LAN
Hi Tom,
We too have a small network comprising about six macs and six win95 =
As far as back up goes, retrospect is the business, but you may find =
Apple run a forum for ASIP at =
Hope this helps,
Dan Thurgood
Subject: setting up a new MAC lan...
I've received some good advice so far...only two comments.
1. People are recommending DLT tape backups. Please keep in mind that not everyone has a LOT of money to spend. Budgets have to be kept in mind, particularly when the company's managers are not technically knowledgeable, as mine are.
2. People are saying not to get cable modems, but to get DSL instead. DSL is just as much a security risk as cable modems, and nowhere near as easily available. Please don't assume that DSL is universally available. It's not. It's months and years away for people who don't live in places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc.
Tom
-- tom@visualwave.com--
Subject: [WinMac] RE: seeking advice/resources for a *new* mac-based LAN From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:58:20 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 10:41 AM -0400 10/1/99, Omar Ch=E1vez wrote: >2) A DSL router works like a charm (and it's a lot safer than a cable >modem). For improved security, hook it up to a Mac, not a PC -or better >yet, get a dedicated gizmo such as the WebRamp (which comes with >built-in firewall). Most of the DSL routers out there include DHCP and NAT=20 functionality, so that you really don't need to hook it up to any=20 computer - it's also a mini hub.
Leonard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 You've got a SmartFriend=81 in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Rosenthol Internet: leonardr@lazerware.com America Online: MACgician Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/> =46TP Site: <ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/> PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
Subject: Re: [WinMac] Re: seeking advice/resources for a *new* mac-based LAN From: "Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:16:49 -0400 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > As far as back up goes, retrospect is the business, but you may find > (following reports on this list and others) that there is a conflict between > MacOS 8.6 and the latest version of Retrospect. Anyone got any thoughts on > that? Tape is the only really useful media as others have said. We use CDR > only for archiving. Um, Retrospect and 8.6 run fine together as long as you run the latest version. john
> Hope this helps, > > Dan Thurgood > > * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List * >
Subject: Re: [WinMac] setting up a new MAC lan... From: "Welch, John C." <jwelch@aer.com> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:16:50 -0400 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Tom...how much money is your data worth? 8mm doesn't scale as well, and 4mm is not as reliable. Is DLT pricey, yes. Is it worth it? Yes. john > From: "tom lyczko" <tom@mail.visualwave.com> > Reply-To: "The Windows-MacOS cooperation list"<winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> > Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:21:20 -0400 > To: <winmac@xerxes.frit.utexas.edu> > Subject: [WinMac] setting up a new MAC lan... > > I've received some good advice so far...only two comments. > > 1. People are recommending DLT tape backups. Please keep in mind that not > everyone has a LOT of money to spend. Budgets have to be kept in mind, > particularly when the company's managers are not technically knowledgeable, as > mine are. > > 2. People are saying not to get cable modems, but to get DSL instead. DSL is > just as much a security risk as cable modems, and nowhere near as easily > available. Please don't assume that DSL is universally available. It's not. > It's months and years away for people who don't live in places like NYC, > Chicago, SF, etc. > > Tom > > -- > tom@visualwave.com > -- > > * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List * >
Subject: Re: seeking advice/resources for a *new* mac-based LAN From: Rick Kent <maverick@maverickmedia.com> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:45:26 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" I can respond from experience to a few of your questions: > >2. Soon after the LAN is set up, they want to get a cable modem >setup for Internet access sharing. > >a. What is good security software to get so people can't hack in via >whichever computer has the cable modem connection? (I hope to have >them use a Mac for this instead of a Windows machine.) >b. What is good Internet connection sharing software or hardware on >the Mac side? (I know about Sygate on the Windows side.) For both of those questions, try IPNetRouter from Sustainable Softworks: http://www.sustworks.com. With this software solution, you can connect the cable modem to your Mac Server (or any Mac on the network for that matter). It works flawlessly to provide internet connections for any Mac or PC on the network, and it is very easy to setup. (It is also inexpensive, considering the alternatives.) If you use a separate ethernet card for your LAN (i.e. one card for your LAN, one for your cable modem, on the same machine), they you can set up a simple firewall with IPNetRouter. It's right in the documentation, and although we have not done it (we're still desparately awaiting either cable or DSL service availability), it appears to be very straightforward. The company is also very good about responding to e-mail support requests. > >3. What is considered good backup software? (Ideally, I'd like NOT >to use tapes, but CD-R or CD-RW instead.) I was amused that someone else responded with "You're pretty much stuck with Retrospect <http://www.dantz.com>". I wish I were so "stuck" with all the products I need. Retrospect is a superb piece of software, and from what I have read, is completely unmatched in the PC world. Rick =============================================================== SHORT RUN CUSTOM PRINTED COLOR LABELS, DECALS, & NAMEPLATES ANY SIZE - ANY SHAPE - VINYLS, POLYESTERS, GOLD & SILVER FOILS AND MORE FULL COLOR FOR VHS VIDEO & AUDIO CASSETTES * SHORT RUN * AFFORDABLE * FAST * EASY * VISIT US AT <http://www.mavericklabels.com> & <http://www.maverickmedia.com> Rick Kent Maverick Color Labels (425) 771-6500 Maverick Multimedia, Inc. (425) 771-7166 FAX 180 W Dayton, Ste 102-A SALES: 1-800-537-8816 Edmonds, WA 98020-4127 TOLL FREE: 1-877-4-MAVERIck (462-8374) <maverick@mavericklabels.com> =================================================================
Subject: DSL vs. Cable Modems From: "Darryl Lee" <lee@darryl.com> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:41:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ah, it's a can of worms. Anyways, sorry i'm not properly attributing all these quotes, but i'm feeling lazy... (And sorry this is so long!) Anyways, my data comes from personal experience (i have PacBell's personal ADSL service, and my dad has @Home's cable modem service), as well as this recent article in Salon: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/09/23/cable_dsl/index.html > >2. People are saying not to get cable modems, but to get DSL > >instead. DSL is just as much a security risk as cable modems, > > No, it isn't! DSL is safer because it's not a shared line > (usually - some types of DSL can be but they aren't used all that > often). Also, if you're using NAT on your DSL line, the chances for > hacking the machines on the other side of the router are boardering > on NIL. In the first generation of cable modems, it *was* easy to sniff the line. But the engineers got a clue and programmed the modems to do filtering, turning the cable modems into bridges, much like DSL modems. i've also heard that they use some form of encryption on their packets, but i'm not sure about that. By the way, there's nothing really preventing you from running NAT on a cable modem. (Um, except some sleazily written service agreements. But really, with NAT, it's hard to tell if it's 3 computers behind NAT, or one really busy websurfer. :) > >and nowhere near as easily available. Please don't assume that DSL > >is universally available. It's not. It's months and years away for > >people who don't live in places like NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. > > > That is certainly an issue - no question! But DSL certainly seems to be more available than cable. i mean, DSL is designed to work over the same copper as POTS (plain old telephone service). And at least in the US, there's plenty of that copper. But can you get cable TV everywhere? Not to mention the fiber that is required for cable modems? i'd say that they've got a *long* road ahead of them. Anyways, three months ago i did some calling around to see what options were available in about 15 field offices our company had around the country. Let's just say that *no* cable modem companies were even planning to offer service to *businesses*. Most of the the telephone companies/DSL providers i spoke to were at least *planning* on rolling out DSL to most places. I'd say that's your main problem. Unless you have a home business, the cable company won't even *talk* to you about giving you a modem for your office. (@Work, the business division of @Home, actually puts in DSL, T1s, etc.) > Another thing to keep in mind with Cable vs. DSL is that > Cable modems are designed to be "half-duplex" in that the download > speed is high, but upload speeds SUCK (some cable modems use standard > 56K for uploads). That means that if you are going to be doing a lot > of data sends (Email, FTP uploads, etc.) you may want to look beyond > cable. Sure, but you could say the same of ADSL (Asymmetrical). And at least around here, it's a significant amount more to go to SDSL (Symmetrical). i'd say that DSL's strength is that it can be both a consumer solution (ADSL), or a business solution (SDSL, or faster ADSL). On the other hand, not *all* cable modems are asymmetrical. (And i really don't think half-duplex is quite the right term, Leonard. :) @Home started out symmetrical, but as demand/usage has grown, they've had to fine tune things, which may include cranking down upload speeds in favor of providing better download speeds (which makes up the bulk of consumer traffic. Can you say porn? :) Finally, Omar and Leonard wrote about DSL routers: At 10:41 AM -0400 10/1/99, Omar Ch?vez wrote: > 2) A DSL router works like a charm (and it's a lot safer than a cable > modem). For improved security, hook it up to a Mac, not a PC -or better > yet, get a dedicated gizmo such as the WebRamp (which comes with > built-in firewall). Again, these days, a lot of cable modems are *acting* like two-port switches or routers. And again, cable modems can be hooked up to a Mac or dedicated NAT box just as easily as a DSL router. ALSO, tell me again what makes a PC (presumably with Windows) inherently more insecure than a Mac? Just turn off file sharing. It's not like it's a Linux box where you have to disable all the ports. >:P (Don't get me wrong, i'm using Linux right now, but i *do* have to be more paranoid then i would if this were a Windows machine. Then again, i'd be crashing a lot more, which would make it even harder for hackers to get at me, right? :) Leonard wrote: > Most of the DSL routers out there include DHCP and NAT > functionality, so that you really don't need to hook it up to any > computer - it's also a mini hub. Yes, there are a *lot* of DSL routers out there that do this, and they're quite cool. BUT, unlike ISDN, most DSL providers don't really give you the option of using whatever cool equipment you just bought from Fry's. Maybe because the technology is still relatively "new" (at least to the public), most DSL providers are enforcing the use of very specific equipment that they will sell you. My home DSL modem is an Alcatel 1000. But can i just go out and buy one of these fancy shmancy DSL routers and plug it in? No *way*. Am i happy about this? Well, on the one hand, choice would be nice, but on the other hand, have you ever had problems with an ISDN set-up? From the point of view of troubleshooting a bad connection, having one less variable to deal with is *always* a good thing. Anyways, i'm rambling on a bit, but i just wanted to rebut some of the points made in past couple of days. How many of you folks actually are running on DSL/Cable? Show of hands?
Subject: Re: [WinMac] DSL vs. Cable Modems From: Leonard Rosenthol <leonardr@lazerware.com> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 14:17:12 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 10:41 AM -0700 10/1/99, Darryl Lee wrote: >In the first generation of cable modems, it *was* easy to sniff the >line. But the engineers got a clue and programmed the modems to do >filtering, turning the cable modems into bridges, much like DSL >modems. i've also heard that they use some form of encryption on >their packets, but i'm not sure about that. AFAIK, there is no crypto in either cable modems - or if=20 there is, it's not something they are making public knowledge (for=20 fear the crypto community will nail their butts!)
>By the way, there's nothing really preventing you from running NAT >on a cable modem. (Um, except some sleazily written service >agreements. But really, with NAT, it's hard to tell if it's 3 >computers behind NAT, or one really busy websurfer. :) Assuming you are willing to deal with those agreements, you=20 can run NAT on another machine on the network with ANY type of=20 connectivity. However, if you want static IP's (which is what I=20 use) then cable is a non-option...
>But DSL certainly seems to be more available than cable. i mean, DSL >is designed to work over the same copper as POTS (plain old telephone >service). And at least in the US, there's plenty of that copper. Agreed. DSL is available throughout most of the Deleware=20 Valey while there is almost no Cable Modem service.
>=20 > Another thing to keep in mind with Cable vs. DSL is that >=20 > Cable modems are designed to be "half-duplex" in that the download >=20 > speed is high, but upload speeds SUCK (some cable modems use standard >=20 > 56K for uploads). That means that if you are going to be doing a lot >=20 > of data sends (Email, FTP uploads, etc.) you may want to look beyond >=20 > cable. > >Sure, but you could say the same of ADSL (Asymmetrical). And at least >around here, it's a significant amount more to go to SDSL (Symmetrical). SDSL is more expensive, but not significantly more, at least=20 here in Bell Atlantic territory.
>i'd say that DSL's strength is that it can be both a consumer solution >(ADSL), or a business solution (SDSL, or faster ADSL). Yup! And that you can get static IP's over DSL (unlike=20 cable) and that you can do voice-over-IP.
>On the other hand, not *all* cable modems are asymmetrical. (And i >really don't think half-duplex is quite the right term, Leonard. :) True, that's my old modem days coming back to me...(though in=20 the old days, they used to describe things like satellite links as=20 "half-duplex" where the up vs. down speeds were different).
>ALSO, tell me again what makes a PC (presumably with Windows) inherently >more insecure than a Mac? Just turn off file sharing. It's not like >it's a Linux box where you have to disable all the ports. >:P How about things like BackOrifice, all the known Windows=20 security holes, etc?
>Leonard wrote: >=20 > Most of the DSL routers out there include DHCP and NAT >=20 > functionality, so that you really don't need to hook it up to any >=20 > computer - it's also a mini hub. > >Yes, there are a *lot* of DSL routers out there that do this, and >they're quite cool. BUT, unlike ISDN, most DSL providers don't really >give you the option of using whatever cool equipment you just bought >from Fry's. That is true, in most cases they provide the hardware though=20 you can offer to provide your own if you want. For example, we=20 actually looked at upgrading my Cisco IDSN router to do DSL, but=20 since I also needed the ISDN service for other things, I didn't go=20 that route.
>My home DSL modem is an Alcatel 1000. But can i just go out and buy >one of these fancy shmancy DSL routers and plug it in? No *way*. Sure you can. Unless your service agreement says otherwise,=20 you own that modem and you can replace it with whatever you want.=20 I've got a FlowPoint 2200 that Covad provided me, and it's working=20 great.
>Am i happy about this? Well, on the one hand, choice would be nice, >but on the other hand, have you ever had problems with an ISDN set-up? Not once I got it all configured, nope. I used to have some=20 problems with the POTS jacks on my Cisco when using them with certain=20 devices (like Mopiers)...
>How many of you folks >actually are running on DSL/Cable? Show of hands? > I just recently went to DSL (from ISDN) and no complaints,=20 once I got the installer past the fact that I was using static IP's=20 and not NAT...
Leonard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- =20 You've got a SmartFriend=81 in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Rosenthol Internet: leonardr@lazerware.com America Online: MACgician Web Site: <http://www.lazerware.com/> =46TP Site: <ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/> PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65
Subject: Re: [WinMac] DSL vs. Cable Modems From: "Darryl Lee" <lee@darryl.com> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:42:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Leonard wrote: > AFAIK, there is no crypto in either cable modems - or if > there is, it's not something they are making public knowledge (for > fear the crypto community will nail their butts!) Ok, it _might_ be coming. (http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/09/23/cable_dsl/index3.html) :> The ARP problem, meanwhile, will be solved by the next-generation :> cable modems that implement the so-called DOCSIS 1.1 protocol. :> Instead of broadcasting ARP packets over the entire cable segment, :> DOCSIS 1.1 makes sure that each customer will only see the ARP :> messages intended for his or her machine. As an added protection, :> DOCSIS 1.1 is capable of encrypting all information sent over the :> cable itself, with a separate encryption key for each customer. :> This security measure prevents an attacker from splicing their own :> cable modem into the backbone, the way that some people used to :> hook up unauthorized cable decoders to get free cable TV service. [Re: NAT] > Assuming you are willing to deal with those agreements, you > can run NAT on another machine on the network with ANY type of > connectivity. However, if you want static IP's (which is what I > use) then cable is a non-option... Right, but if you want static IPs, then NAT on DSL is also a non-option. You wrote: > Also, if you're using NAT on your DSL line, the chances for > hacking the machines on the other side of the router are boardering > on NIL. My point was that the same goes for cable. NAT is a great security measure, regardless of connectivity. [Re: Macs vs. Windows vs. Linux vs. dedicated NAT boxes] > How about things like BackOrifice, all the known Windows > security holes, etc? Sure, if you're opening up e-mail attachments on the machine that serves as your gateway, then you're entitled to all the havoc that BackOrifice can bring. >:} [Re: half-duplex != asymmetrical] > True, that's my old modem days coming back to me...(though in > the old days, they used to describe things like satellite links as > "half-duplex" where the up vs. down speeds were different). Ah, i remember the old modem days well. Can you say 300 baud acoustic coupler? Yeah! Anyways, i thought half-duplex just meant that a connection could not send and receive at the same time. [Anyways, gotta get to work, sorry no time to argue whether or not i should be allowed to swap out my own DSL equipment. :}] --D
Subject: Quicktime Server for NT... From: "Jason Clement" <Jason@GiSCO.net> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:47:21 -0400 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi, First of all, I have to say I LOVE this list. Very informative and useful. My question is whether anyone out there know of a solution for streaming Quicktime on an NT server. I know that the software is open source but I haven't heard about anything being done for NT. Thanks for any input. Jason Clement Director of Web Development GiSCO soft media 507 Riverside Drive Clayton, New York 13624 315.686.4656 fax 315.686.4838 http://www.GOGiSCO.net
Subject: Slow NT server copying From: Tony Green <tonygreen@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:05:50 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does anybody know what would cause slow copying from a Macintosh volume on= an NT server to a beige desktop Mac G3 running Mac OS 8.1? Copying= performance varies widely for no reason I can think of for as long as we've= had this server and we've tried to find the culprit, but no luck so far.= Today it's running about 2 meg/minute, so I thought I'd ask again. I've= tried most of the tips at the Macwindows site, but the problem is very= inconsistent. Most of the time, it's fine, but when it's not... we don't= know "what's different." The server is a Compaq 850R (single 200-MHz Pentium Pro) with 160 meg of= RAM, 2 gig internal and two 9 gig Seagate external drives. NT 4.0 SP3 (I= have the SP5 CD but haven't installed it yet). The hubs are a 24-port and a= 12-port 3Com SuperStack II dual-speed units. Other hardware includes a= Shiva LanRover and an AIT tape drive. There are three Macintosh volumes on= the server. There are about 20 client machines mostly beige G3s running 8.1 with some HP= Vectras running Windows 95 OSR2. The Macs have 100 Mbit Asante Ethernet= cards set to full-duplex. We have Backup Exec but the maxfiles registry key is correct. The= screensaver is set to blank screen. What seems odd is that CPU usage is quite light. Task Manager is running= 1-5% usage, System is around 5-8%, SFMSVC is using 0 K memory and 0% CPU= (does that sound right?). None of the other processes show any CPU usage. Total memory usage is 132284K out of 394020K (physical RAM plus paged memory= ). The server was restarted yesterday. We also have intermittent problems with Mac users hanging at logon, but= logging on with administrative privileges fixes that. Does anyone have any suggestions? Is it simply a matter of adding more RAM?= If it were slow ALL the time, it might be easier to fix. Thanks! Tony Green
End of WinMac Digest * Windows-MacOS Cooperation List *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Oct 01 1999 - 17:10:03 PDT |