Very Computer

Quote:>Is this 'rational' linux thinking?  Are there compelling reasons to go
>the other way - all SCSI?

Well, SCSI is traditionally used because of it's higher reliability, higher
speed, and lower CPU usage. The main problem is the cost. You are looking at
about $100-$200 for a new SCSI controller and another few hundred bucks for
a descent SCSI drive. If you don't have many clients on the network, then
you may just want to go with IDE because of the cost.

Quote:>Also, can someone explain the benefits of the "native" format over
>FAT?  I haven't found this answer yet.

The "native" format (actually called ext2) is better designed then FAT and
provides more features like permissions and unix file attributes. Linux will
also be A LOT faster running off of a ext2 partition then it would using
FAT. In other words, use ext2 and forget about FAT.

    Hope this helps a bit.
        -Maksim Noy.

I have a P90 Intel PCI motherboard (built in dual channel IDE), 3GB
EIDE Seagate Drive, 32 MB RAM, Dell <*mumble - something or other*>
2MB video card, an ancient adaptec scsi card that runs an equally
ancient CDROM and 1GB Western Digital <*mumble - something or other*>
Drive.  

All quite happily running WinNT Server 4.0 for my SOHO.  But there are
a few things that NT won't do (ok, so there are a LOT of things it
won't do - but that's not the point - well, actually it is....  ;-).

I'm preparing to dump NT for Linux (I'm reading the RH installation
guide, How-To's, and FAQ's in my spare time) but I'm a little nervous
about the SCSI devices.  

It seems to me that the least painful install would be to just skip
the whole pile of SCSI problems I've read about in this group and
.setup and buy a new IDE CDROM and additional IDE drive (I could use
the space anyway).

Is this 'rational' linux thinking?  Are there compelling reasons to go
the other way - all SCSI?  

Are there problems with 8GB IDE drives divided into two 4 GB
partitions for file storage?  The current IDE drive is 3 GB (two
partitions) and would remain the boot volume and the new drive would
supply file-server storage space.

Also, can someone explain the benefits of the "native" format over
FAT?  I haven't found this answer yet.

The other question is about my NICs.  I use LinkSys NE2000 clone cards
(both ISA and PCI) and LinkSys print servers throughout.  LinkSys
claims to fully support Linux but there is a little fine print in the
RedHat installation manual about NE2000 clones.  Anyone have any
experience with these cards?

Thanks for all the good posts and responses that I've read in the last
month or so and for all your help.

-sp

No, it's not.

If the CDRom works without flaws, don't buy a new one.
I could count the days I needed my CDRom in the last six months.
Maybe three or four ... If you need a CDRom only for installation,
don't buy a new one, bring something to read (a Linux installation guide?)
instead. Don't spend $$ on a *IDE or $$$ on a fast good SCSI CDRom,
if only for installation. Not even borrowing one makes sense.
It will take less than one hour of your computer's time to read the complete
CD, and you don't have to watch it :-)

SCSI itself is (IMHO) reliable, and those units I have seen were superior
to IDE. The problem is that you have more choices and thus can make
more mistakes.

You didn't specify what ADAPTEC model you have.
If it is supported (which I don't doubt and RedHat can tell you), use it.
If you think about buying a new hard drive, maybe think about an SCSI
board. But for now leave it as it is.

You'll see that a complete Linux installation is usually smaller
than M$' core OS. 4Gig is plenty, normally.

Quote:>Are there problems with 8GB IDE drives divided into two 4 GB
>partitions for file storage?  The current IDE drive is 3 GB (two
>partitions) and would remain the boot volume and the new drive would
>supply file-server storage space.

For how many users?

Quote:>Also, can someone explain the benefits of the "native" format over
>FAT?  I haven't found this answer yet.

Probably faster. More importantly, each file has an owner, and permissions
mneaning: who is allowed what with this file. So a nmormal user
won't be able to crash system files.

Make sure that the graphics card is supported. the NT hardware manager
should be able to tell you the chipset.

Hartmut
--
--  
Hartmut Niemann   --   niemann(a)cip.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
http://www.veryComputer.com/:8080/hyplan/niemann/index_en.html [/ggi]

It seems to be painful install: Since PC's by default come with IDE
disks, they install by default from most distributions. Since SCSI
interfaces differ (on the cpu side), it is hard to accept every SCSI
interface by default.

Once you have linux running, you can tune your SCSI interface up to the
cutting edge.

Quote:

> Is this 'rational' linux thinking?  Are there compelling reasons to go
> the other way - all SCSI?

Linux does not mind, it can work with a mix of every device.

Quote:

> Are there problems with 8GB IDE drives divided into two 4 GB
> partitions for file storage?  The current IDE drive is 3 GB (two
> partitions) and would remain the boot volume and the new drive would
> supply file-server storage space.

No problem to linux again.

Quote:

> Also, can someone explain the benefits of the "native" format over
> FAT?  I haven't found this answer yet.

As explained in other replies: linux can do much more with native
(ext2):
- filenames up to 255 characters
- Using every character except '/' and the <nul> character
- Much better file protections
- linking files (give more names to 1 file)
- better speed
One disadvantage (for M$ users):
- no file recovery, a deleted file is deleted.

Quote:

> The other question is about my NICs.  I use LinkSys NE2000 clone cards
> (both ISA and PCI) and LinkSys print servers throughout.  LinkSys
> claims to fully support Linux but there is a little fine print in the
> RedHat installation manual about NE2000 clones.  Anyone have any
> experience with these cards?

Not me, sorry

CB

--
Try not to let implementation details sneak into design documents.
Corne' Beerse                                   | Alcatel Telecom Nederland

talkto:+31(70)3079108 faxto:+31(70)3079191      | NL-2280 GG  Rijswijk

The one problem you may find is that the installation process may not
recognize your scsi card.  I had to make a fresh partition on my hard drive
(FAT) and copy the installation files to the /Redhat directory and install
from the hard disk.  Once it was up and running, I was able to install my
scsi driver as a module (adaptec aha152x) and read my CD.  I never tried
Caldera OpenLinux process on that computer, but it may have worked better.
You would be better off spending you money on a $28 PCI scsi card
(Sym20810).  A modern card will be recognized by the installation script and
work fine.

Don't buy a new CDROM unless you really want one.  Not really worth it for a
P90.  You have all the drive space you need, so don't buy a new hard drive
either.  (Spend the money on 64 meg of RAM)  In fact, if you want to go
slow, install Linux on the 1 gig WD drive and leave NT 4.0 on the other
drive until you get used to it.  Chances are once you learn from doing the
installation process, you will want to trash it and do it again.  (only
takes 30 minutes or so)

You could also get an el-cheap-o 200 Mhz AMD processor (~$50) if the P90 is
too slow for you.  It will be MUCH faster than NT at file serving without an
upgrade, but even better with one.

Randy

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:04:40 +0200, Corne Beerse

I've used a number of NE2000 clones.  Never had any trouble with RH
recognizing them.  Does a lot better than W95, imho.  I know I've used
LinkSys, but I don't know which ones.  Regardless, I still like cards
with jumpers if you can get them.

--

Jim Wildman

On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 20:04:08 -0700, "Maksim Noy"

Agreed - I'm just gun-shy about configuration problems.  Doing a
search on SCSI (I've been harvesting the group for about a month over
6,000 posts) yields more than 100 issues regarding SCSI and SCSI
configuration.  A similar search on IDE yields only 23 posts regarding
IDE configuration.  Hmmmm.... Einstein I ain't but ain't stupid
neither.

RE: reliability - MTBF figures for IDE drives have been on par with
SCSI for some time now.  IDE _controllers_ are another animal however.

Quote:>The main problem is the cost. You are looking at about $100-$200
>for a new SCSI controller and another few hundred bucks for a descent
>SCSI drive. If you don't have many clients on the network, then you
>may just want to go with IDE because of the cost.

RE: clients - only 5, and three print servers.  Availability of the
network is more critical than the one time 500 bucks for controller
and drive.  Hence my interest in Linux and it's stellar up-time
figures.  NT can't touch it.

Quote:>>Also, can someone explain the benefits of the "native" format over
>>FAT?  I haven't found this answer yet.

>The "native" format (actually called ext2) is better designed then FAT and
>provides more features like permissions and unix file attributes. Linux will
>also be A LOT faster running off of a ext2 partition then it would using
>FAT. In other words, use ext2 and forget about FAT.

Ahh-soo.  What about backing it up?  Are there any problems archiving
ext2 to tape?

Thanks for your input.

-sp

[snip]

Quote:>>It seems to me that the least painful install would be to just skip
>>the whole pile of SCSI problems I've read about in this group and
>>.setup and buy a new IDE CDROM and additional IDE drive (I could use
>>the space anyway).

>>Is this 'rational' linux thinking?  Are there compelling reasons to go
>>the other way - all SCSI?  
>No, it's not.

>If the CDRom works without flaws, don't buy a new one.
>I could count the days I needed my CDRom in the last six months.
>Maybe three or four ... If you need a CDRom only for installation,
>don't buy a new one, bring something to read (a Linux installation guide?)
>instead.

The only purpose for the CDROM is to support installation of the OS,
and sharing it as a drive.  I keep a clip art CD in the drive nearly
all the time but performance is not really an issue (hence why I never
upgraded it in the first place :)

Quote:>Don't spend $$ on a *IDE or $$$ on a fast good SCSI CDRom,
>if only for installation. Not even borrowing one makes sense.
>It will take less than one hour of your computer's time to read the complete
>CD, and you don't have to watch it :-)

>SCSI itself is (IMHO) reliable, and those units I have seen were superior
>to IDE. The problem is that you have more choices and thus can make
>more mistakes.

I can be convinced to save money but - as I said in my response to
Maksim - up-time is one of the primary drivers for going to Linux.

Quote:>You didn't specify what ADAPTEC model you have.

Sorry - it's been long enough since I messed with the innards that I
forgot.  It's a 1542b w/o boot prom.  NT 5 will not support it.

Quote:>If it is supported (which I don't doubt and RedHat can tell you), use it.

Time to go and look...

[snip]

Quote:>The current IDE drive is 3 GB (two partitions) and would remain
>the boot volume and the new drive would supply file-server storage space.
>For how many users?

Only 5 users plus 3 print servers (real big PS spool files though).
We do mostly graphics work so the network drive is used to store files
in production and then they are archived to tape.
[snip]

Quote:>Make sure that the graphics card is supported. the NT hardware manager
>should be able to tell you the chipset.

It's S3 I think but I'll have the cover off shortly.  NT will tell you
what I _thinks_ the chipset is :-o

Thanks for your input.

-sp

[snip]

Quote:>I've used a number of NE2000 clones.  Never had any trouble with RH
>recognizing them.  Does a lot better than W95, imho.  I know I've used
>LinkSys, but I don't know which ones.  Regardless, I still like cards
>with jumpers if you can get them.

The LinkSys cards have a very nice (little) DOS utility that I have
put on a boot floppy.  A charming solution to a screwdriver - IMHO of
course. :-)

Thanks to you and Corne for your input - a little reassurance is
always nice.

-sp

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:34:15 -0500, "Randy Olinger"

This line of discussion is similar to what I saw in the searches of
this group and linux.setup (see my response to Maksim).  

I've used SCSI (with multiple controllers, RAID, etc.) many times but
not in a mixed environment.  Knowing the hardware side (IRQ, Base
Addr, etc.) is easy enough but I _really_ don't want to fight the
install.

I don't know squat about unix anyway (a sidebar reason for using Linux
as my server is that I get to learn more about unix.) so recompiling
the kernel is a good bit more than I want to mess with at the moment.

[snip]

Quote:>(Spend the money on 64 meg of RAM)  

I was wondering if that would make a difference.  The primary use of
the server is to provide file and print functions.  Big .ps files
going to either a prepress printer or plotter.  I'll have to ask over
in linux.networking how Linux & samba handle files like this.

Quote:

>You could also get an el-cheap-o 200 Mhz AMD processor (~$50) if the P90 is
>too slow for you.  It will be MUCH faster than NT at file serving without an
>upgrade, but even better with one.

Are you talking about a straight processor upgrade? I hadn't looked in
to it.  Hmmmmm....

Thanks for your thoughts.

-sp