NetBIOS or NetBIOS over TCP/IP in today's world...any need?

[Dariusz Piatkowski]

As the subject says...is there a real requirement in a home LAN setup where I
have a single OS/2 machine and multiple Win (XP) computers to run any of these
setups?

My interconnectivity between the machines is accomplished through FTP, that
really means an occasional file x-fer...the printer is networked, scanner is
connected to my OS/2 machine only.

I have also tried NFS, which appeared to be OK. Looked at Samba, but I have not
done enough research to really understand what base OS/2 components are required
(if any) to make this work.

Basically, I have no real extensive file sharing requirements...so does it make
sense to run any of these setups?

I continually run into problems attempting to install updated device
drivers...and each and every time I narrow this down to an out-of-memory
condition. Therefore, I am on a mission to remove as much of the overhead as
possible.

Thanks!

[Doug Bissett]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:49:15 UTC, "Dariusz Piatkowski"
<dariusz@_NO-SPAM_mnsi.net> wrote:

> As the subject says...is there a real requirement in a home LAN setup where I
> have a single OS/2 machine and multiple Win (XP) computers to run any of these
> setups?

Probably not. XP can probably be convinced to connect to NETBIOS, if
you install the windows support for it, but it does limit you to no
more than 2 GB files. Likewise, NETBIOS over TCP/IP can probably be
used, with a LOT of messing around in the windows machines. It is
probably not worth the effort.

> My interconnectivity between the machines is accomplished through FTP, that
> really means an occasional file x-fer...the printer is networked, scanner is
> connected to my OS/2 machine only.

For the occasional file, FTP is probably the best option.

> I have also tried NFS, which appeared to be OK. Looked at Samba, but I have not
> done enough research to really understand what base OS/2 components are required
> (if any) to make this work.

In my experience, SAMBA (the server) works pretty good, when you use
windows as the client. The eCS client (EVFS) has some serious
problems. It is very difficult to convince it to attach to a windows
machine, and I find that it is very slow to connect, or do something
like a directory list. Once it actually gets around to transfering
data, it is not too bad. In your case, you could put the SAMBA server
onto your eCS machine, and connect to it from your windows machines.

> Basically, I have no real extensive file sharing requirements...so does it make
> sense to run any of these setups?

It depends on your needs. Personally, I use RSync for most of my file
transfers. There is a windows program, Deltacopy, that works with
RSync. This is not too hard to set up, once you figure it out, but
there is a bit of a learning curve.

> I continually run into problems attempting to install updated device
> drivers...and each and every time I narrow this down to an out-of-memory
> condition. Therefore, I am on a mission to remove as much of the overhead as
> possible.
>
> Thanks!

I assume that you are running out of shared memory space.

I don't know what else you have done about that, but there are a few
things, that I know about, that help:

One is to add the line
dllbasing=off
near the top of your CONFIG.SYS. (a recent kernel is required)

Another is to use
EARLYMEMINIT=TRUE
but you need to investigate potential problems with using that one.

Eliminate all unused IFS lines in CONFIG.SYS. I quit using HPFS a
couple of years ago, and that freed up a lot of shared memory space (I
use JFS). I usually install ntfs.ifs, but I REM it, except when
necessary (never).

Eliminate RAMDISKs, and/or virtual floppies.

REM the CACHEF32.EXE line. The FAT32 driver is faster, and more
reliable, without it.

VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=1536
seems to be the most likely to work, in most cases, but try 2048, or
1024, to see if either one helps.

There are probably other things that might help more than eliminating
networking support, but if you don't use it...

HTH...
--
From the eComStation of Doug Bissett
dougb007 at telus dot net
(Please make the obvious changes, to e-mail me)

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 04:10:11 +0000 (UTC), Doug Bissett
<dougb007!SP...@telus.net> wrote:

>> As the subject says...is there a real requirement in a home LAN setup where I
>> have a single OS/2 machine and multiple Win (XP) computers to run any of these
>> setups?
>
> Probably not. XP can probably be convinced to connect to NETBIOS, if
> you install the windows support for it, but it does limit you to no
> more than 2 GB files. Likewise, NETBIOS over TCP/IP can probably be
> used, with a LOT of messing around in the windows machines. It is
> probably not worth the effort.

It is very little effort to install this stuff on Windows and make it
work. Nothing like what you imply anyway - "LOT of messing" and "convince".
Yet again you seem not to know what you're talking about.
I, on the other hand, have had this setup on over 80 machines and do know.

>> My interconnectivity between the machines is accomplished through FTP, that
>> really means an occasional file x-fer...the printer is networked, scanner is
>> connected to my OS/2 machine only.
>
> For the occasional file, FTP is probably the best option.

For the user's stated objectives, I wouldn't bother with anything other
than FTP either.

>> I have also tried NFS, which appeared to be OK. Looked at Samba, but I have not
>> done enough research to really understand what base OS/2 components are required
>> (if any) to make this work.

TCP/IP only, AIUI, but I have never used it.

> In my experience, SAMBA (the server) works pretty good,

Do you not know the difference between "good" and "well"?
"It works well" is proper English.

>> Basically, I have no real extensive file sharing requirements...so does it make
>> sense to run any of these setups?

Probably not.

>> I continually run into problems attempting to install updated device
>> drivers...and each and every time I narrow this down to an out-of-memory
>> condition. Therefore, I am on a mission to remove as much of the overhead as
>> possible.

Guesswork.

> I assume that you are running out of shared memory space.

Guesswork.

> Eliminate all unused IFS lines in CONFIG.SYS. I quit using HPFS a
> couple of years ago, and that freed up a lot of shared memory space

IFSs load into Kernel memory space. You ignored that the last time I told
you, but you blithely repeat your stock phrases.

[Doug Bissett]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:42:35 UTC, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

...snip...

> It is very little effort to install this stuff on Windows and make it
> work. Nothing like what you imply anyway - "LOT of messing" and "convince".
> Yet again you seem not to know what you're talking about.
> I, on the other hand, have had this setup on over 80 machines and do know.

It is easy, with the windows PRO versions. It is not so easy with the
lesser windows versions (XP and up). You need to convince them to use
the older methods to log on, or they try to use the newer methods,
which OS/2 doesn't know about. Then, you need to convince them to
allow the old logon method so that OS/2 can log onto windows. It
works, but it is MESSY. After you get to Win7, it is pretty well
impossible to get OS/2 NETBIOS over TCPIP, to cooperate. NETBIOS will
probably still work, because it doesn't use the windows logon crap,
but I am not sure if the old NETBIOS will even install on win7, I
haven't tried it.

It makes more sense to convert to SAMBA in cases like that anyway. You
gain the ability to handle files that are larger than 2 GB, and
windows doesn't need to use the older logon methods, although I saw
something recently, that implied that win8 has invented yet another
logon method, just to be sure that nothing else is compatible.

...snip...

> Do you not know the difference between "good" and "well"?
> "It works well" is proper English.

Only in England. Where I live, "well" implies working without flaws.
"Good" implies that there are some problems (and there are). English
has progressed well beyond what you learned in school. Live with it.

> IFSs load into Kernel memory space. You ignored that the last time I told
> you, but you blithely repeat your stock phrases.

I ignore a lot of what you say, since a lot of it isn't worth reading.

All I know, is that I gained a large chunk of shared memory space,
when I REMed the HPFS.IFS line in CONFIG.SYS. Perhaps it was the cache
that freed up some (or all) of it. In any case, it does free shared
memory space when you REM IFS lines in CONFIG.SYS. I don't really care
why.

[Andreas Schnellbacher]

Doug Bissett wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:42:35 UTC, Paul Ratcliffe
> <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>> It is very little effort to install this stuff on Windows and make
>> it work. Nothing like what you imply anyway - "LOT of messing" and
>> "convince". Yet again you seem not to know what you're talking
>> about. I, on the other hand, have had this setup on over 80
>> machines and do know.
>
> It is easy, with the windows PRO versions. It is not so easy with
> the lesser windows versions (XP and up).

Shit, is that poor! Doug, have you ever considered to simply shut up?
Please let those people who know about what they're talking speak
here. You're simply spreading mystics. Some of them are correct, other
are totally wrong. That style is of no use for other newsgroup
readers.

Sorry for the full quoting. I'm speakless.

--
Andreas Schnellbacher

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:56:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Bissett
<dougb007!SP...@telus.net> wrote:

>> It is very little effort to install this stuff on Windows and make it
>> work. Nothing like what you imply anyway - "LOT of messing" and "convince".
>> Yet again you seem not to know what you're talking about.
>> I, on the other hand, have had this setup on over 80 machines and do know.
>
> It is easy, with the windows PRO versions. It is not so easy with the
> lesser windows versions (XP and up).

XP Pro isn't a lesser version. It works very easily.

>> Do you not know the difference between "good" and "well"?
>> "It works well" is proper English.
>
> Only in England. Where I live, "well" implies working without flaws.
> "Good" implies that there are some problems (and there are).

You people have rewritten the dictionary then?
Or more likely you didn't look in it and you are spouted shit off the
top of your head.
One is an adverb and the other is an adjective, for your information.
They can't be used interchangably (correctly), even by ignorant North
American continent dwellers.
(Leaving aside that "well" is also a noun, but not relevant to the point.)

> English has progressed well beyond what you learned in school. Live with it.

No it hasn't, you patronising ignorant fucker.
You obviously never learnt it in the first place.

>> IFSs load into Kernel memory space. You ignored that the last time I told
>> you, but you blithely repeat your stock phrases.
>
> I ignore a lot of what you say, since a lot of it isn't worth reading.

Which means "I know you are right but I've lost the argument and I don't
want to appear even more of a dickhead than I have already".

[Pete]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 13:22:03 UTC, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

--snip--

> One is an adverb and the other is an adjective, for your information.

Also true here in North America, the US at least, not sure about
Canader, not that anybody pays much attention anymore.

> ignorant North
> American continent dwellers.

You're still sore that Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown? His
losing then made a big difference in 1918 and 1945.

HTH,
Pete

--

[Doug Bissett]

I shouldn't bother, but here goes anyway...

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 13:22:03 UTC, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:56:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Bissett
> <dougb007!SP...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >> It is very little effort to install this stuff on Windows and make it
> >> work. Nothing like what you imply anyway - "LOT of messing" and "convince".
> >> Yet again you seem not to know what you're talking about.
> >> I, on the other hand, have had this setup on over 80 machines and do know.
> >
> > It is easy, with the windows PRO versions. It is not so easy with the
> > lesser windows versions (XP and up).
>
> XP Pro isn't a lesser version. It works very easily.

Isn't that what I said? Try XP HOME edition (a "lesser" version)...

> >> Do you not know the difference between "good" and "well"?
> >> "It works well" is proper English.
> >
> > Only in England. Where I live, "well" implies working without flaws.
> > "Good" implies that there are some problems (and there are).
>
> You people have rewritten the dictionary then?

The English disctionary is rewritten daily. Try to keep up.

> Or more likely you didn't look in it and you are spouted shit off the
> top of your head.

Why look in a dictionary? Every one of them is obsolete. It takes
years for them to catch up to general usage, and none of them ever
catch up to local usage.

> One is an adverb and the other is an adjective, for your information.

Not when used as I used it. Your ancient rules no longer apply.

> They can't be used interchangably (correctly), even by ignorant North
> American continent dwellers.

Now IGNORANT is something that YOU are good at (or is it well?).

> (Leaving aside that "well" is also a noun, but not relevant to the point.)

Good...

> > English has progressed well beyond what you learned in school. Live with it.
>
> No it hasn't, you patronising ignorant fucker.

Perhaps English, in England, is still stuck in the 18th century, why
should anybody else limit themselves to that nonsense?

> You obviously never learnt it in the first place.

Actually, you are right. English was my second worst subject in
school, outdone only by French. Languages never made any sense to me.
Far too many stupid rules, that only Europeans could possibly dream
up. Maths, and sciences was where I did well (or is that good?).

> >> IFSs load into Kernel memory space. You ignored that the last time I told
> >> you, but you blithely repeat your stock phrases.
> >
> > I ignore a lot of what you say, since a lot of it isn't worth reading.
>
> Which means "I know you are right but I've lost the argument and I don't
> want to appear even more of a dickhead than I have already".

What a maroon, as Bugs Bunny used to say...

[Dave Yeo]

Pete wrote:
> You're still sore that Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown? His
> losing then made a big difference in 1918 and 1945.

True, the wars may have been over much sooner with the whole of North
America getting involved at the beginning.

Dave

[Doug Bissett]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:42:35 UTC, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

> > Eliminate all unused IFS lines in CONFIG.SYS. I quit using HPFS a
> > couple of years ago, and that freed up a lot of shared memory space
>
> IFSs load into Kernel memory space. You ignored that the last time I told
> you, but you blithely repeat your stock phrases.
>

Okay, I finally found the time to do this. I set up my system to run
ABOVE512, at the end of the boot sequence. The results are:

With HPFS IFS enabled, using:
IFS=C:\OS2\HPFS.IFS /CACHE:2048 /CRECL:4 /AUTOCHECK:*
ABOVE512 shows this:
current free virtual address space in kB (private / shared):
346496 / 234240 below 512MB line, 917504 / 847692 above 512MB line

REM HPFS.IFS, and it shows this:
current free virtual address space in kB (private / shared):
347008 / 234752 below 512MB line, 917504 / 847692 above 512MB line

It sure looks to me like eliminating the HPFS IFS has freed up 512K of
shared memory space, below the 512MB line, which is where the biggest
problem is found. It also frees up private memory space.

Now, do you still want to say that I am wrong?

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:09:20 +0000 (UTC), Doug Bissett <dougb007!SP...@telus.net>
wrote:

> It sure looks to me like eliminating the HPFS IFS has freed up 512K of
> shared memory space, below the 512MB line, which is where the biggest
> problem is found. It also frees up private memory space.
>
> Now, do you still want to say that I am wrong?

512K out of 512M ? That's 1 part in 1024 or about 0.1%.
You seriously think this is going to make a significant difference to
anything in the real world?
Not that your figures prove anything using whatever utility it was. There
could be any number of reasons for the discrepancy which have nothing to
do with the IFS.

But, just to shut you up, I'll admit you are 0.1% right. I, however, am
99.9% right. That says it all really.

[Doug Bissett]

Hey, 512K is 512K. When you need 20 bytes more, it makes a BIG
difference.

The utility is Above512:

> http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/download/pub/os2/dev/util/above512_001b.zip

for those who are interested in finding out just how much free memory
you really have, and what changes that amount.