160Gig ide disk

woon...@wanadoo.nl

unread,

Apr 17, 2002, 10:25:41 AM4/17/02

to

Can anyone tell me how i can use my 160 gig disk for nw 3.12/3.2.
I updated my systemfiles and now i see a 131gig partition but if i create
a this partition i get a mbr error and cannot reboot the server anymore...

Please advice me.

Raymond

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 17, 2002, 10:41:59 AM4/17/02

to

Raymond,

If you are patched up to 3.2 and use ideata.ham drivers you should be able
to create the whole drive as a partition and then split it off into volumes.
You may run into a problem with your MB/BIOS being able to support the
drive.

If you get it to partition, I would be very leery of using >32767 Mb
volumes, and I would look for it to need a lot of memory if you are going to
have that much data on the drive. I wouldn't start out with less than 512
Meg RAM, and would prefer to have a gig.
--
Dave Lunn
NSCV Sysop
http://support.novell.com

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 17, 2002, 12:20:50 PM4/17/02

to

Can you describe the rest of the hardware here?

How much memory is on the server?

Barry Schnur
Novell Support Connection Sysop

Please post replies ONLY via the Newsgroup

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 17, 2002, 6:30:52 PM4/17/02

to

Oh my... that size volume would require about 1900 MB of ram...

You need to be fully patched up to date and use the ham drivers also...

--
Felton Green (SysOp)
Novell Technical Forums Support

Brainshare is coming!
It ROCKS...

April 2003
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Salt Palace Convention Center
The worlds finest networking convention is HERE!

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 17, 2002, 7:45:32 PM4/17/02

to

Felton...

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 17, 2002, 8:02:16 PM4/17/02

to

>Oh my... that size volume would require about 1900 MB of ram...
>

Felton, it might require 1G of RAM with 4K blocks, long file name support,
plus lots of other NLM's running loose.

But if one used say 16K blocks, it would work very well with 384M of RAM I'd
guess.

Then again, I wouldn't recommend that sort of combination -- 160G IDE drive,
Netware, (especially Netware 3.x which can not support the latest IDEATA.CDM
drivers).

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 12:26:36 AM4/18/02

to

Yes...

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 12:26:23 AM4/18/02

to

oh.. you're so picky... %^ )

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 1:22:47 AM4/18/02

to

Well, some folks have a singular idea of memory requirements -- they sell RAM
modules.. <g>

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 1:23:48 AM4/18/02

to

Let's try this one again -- seems the forum software got really confused...

Felton, it might require 1G of RAM with 4K blocks, long file name support,
plus lots of other NLM's running loose.

But if one used say 16K blocks, it would work very well with 384M of RAM I'd
guess.

Then again, I wouldn't recommend that sort of combination -- 160G IDE drive,
Netware, (especially Netware 3.x which can not support the latest IDEATA.CDM
drivers).

woon...@wanadoo.nl

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 3:22:12 AM4/18/02

to

> Can you describe the rest of the hardware here?

P3 533
Dell Optiplex GX110

>
> How much memory is on the server?

128mb

The main purpose of the server will be to store backups that will be made
by 1-5 laptop users a day.

Thanks for the quick reply!!

Raymond

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 11:56:45 AM4/18/02

to

>128mb
>

That is clearly going to be a problem here.

Assuming that use of the latest IDEATA drivers you can use with 3.2 supports a
NetWare partition of that size (and that is an assumption), and assuming that
the BIOS on that Dell system supports a drive >120G (and that too is an
assumption), even if you use 16K block sizes instead of the default 4K, you
are going to need a LOT more memory than the 128M you have installed.

Consider 512M of RAM here, and then also consider not creating a single large
100G+ volume (you still can only use a single NetWare partition here) but
rather two or more volumes to use the single NetWare partition you create.

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 7:57:01 PM4/18/02

to

Oh... ?? I'd like to see that one. %^ )

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 7:53:08 PM4/18/02

to

I don't... I'm an unbiased outsider...

I'm straight of grain.

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 7:56:31 PM4/18/02

to

Nope, You are dead wrong here Barry. The RAM fairy came and smacked
someone silly with her wand, I know I have a picture.

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 7:54:41 PM4/18/02

to

been happing quite a bit of late...

and I know that 16K blocks will reduce the memory... I'm pointing out that
LOTS more is most likely needed. %^ 0

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 11:07:19 PM4/18/02

to

Now THAT I can believe

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 18, 2002, 11:08:53 PM4/18/02

to

True, but there IS a difference between 1.5G plus of RAM and 384M to 512M of
RAM.

That being said, I wonder if trying to have NW 3.x support >100G of volume
space makes much sense under nearly any conditions today.

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 19, 2002, 1:46:15 AM4/19/02

to

Hmmm

mount time would get to be a bit long...

woon...@wanadoo.nl

unread,

Apr 19, 2002, 7:19:17 AM4/19/02

to

So far so good, installed netware 3.12 by following the setup instructions
as told in the big drive questions, it works i now have a netware
partition of 130865.4 Meg,but if i look with ranish partition manager (in
dos) i see 160G of free space in stead of 130G that netware install shows
me.

The 30G is not that big of a problem but i wonder if its possible to use a
drive this size......
Futher it seems to be working ok.
The memmory is a bit low but the future will show me how it will work...
the 130g volume sys mounts in 22 sec with only the novell information and
the 32enh update.

Raymond

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 19, 2002, 10:55:08 AM4/19/02

to

Hi

Be sure to get fully patched... and we would like a final report on how
it's working. I've never seen this size a volume...

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 19, 2002, 11:08:32 AM4/19/02

to

Didn't you send it to me?

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 19, 2002, 11:29:21 AM4/19/02

to

Raymond,

Did you use >32 gig Volumes or less? This is a question that we deal with
often, and are interested in the experience of users. Also, don't forget
there are more lurkers here than posters so your response is helping others
as well.

Regarding the RAM, you will find that as you fill the volume with files and
directories your RAM requirment will increase, and your performance will
decrease.

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 19, 2002, 11:23:48 AM4/19/02

to

I must be old... I don't remember it or sending it to you..

woon...@wanadoo.nl

unread,

Apr 22, 2002, 4:07:30 AM4/22/02

to

I created 1 volume of +-128G (64k blocks), i will fill this tonight with
30gig and we will see what happens.

note: i still use 128mb memory.

i keep you all up to date, and will come with a complete overview next
week.

Raymond

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 22, 2002, 8:35:47 AM4/22/02

to

Raymond,

As you add data, you should see a decrease in cache buffers, and performance
should noticeably degrade. The server may function with cache buffers down
as low as 20%, but it may begin acting up in the 50% range. This will be
dependent upon useage and file sizes mainly. The more data on the drive and
the more users accessing it randomly the worse performance should become.

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 22, 2002, 11:47:52 AM4/22/02

to

Raymond, is this for a test server? Or is the intent to use this in
production?

What size blocks did you use on that 128G volume?

What size files are you filling the volume up with?

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 23, 2002, 12:02:51 AM4/23/02

to

Hi

Ok... we'll be here. %^ )

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 23, 2002, 12:08:51 AM4/23/02

to

Barry

I think it's going to wind up as a backup server for laptops...

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 23, 2002, 1:42:09 AM4/23/02

to

>
>I think it's going to wind up as a backup server for laptops...

Large block size candidate for sure.

woon...@wanadoo.nl

unread,

Apr 24, 2002, 7:47:56 AM4/24/02

to

The server is for backup purposes.
we use ms backup for the laptops and we will use the server for ghost
images, the amount of users will be 1 or 2 with a max of 5.

i saw your discussion about memory and i decided to create 64k blocks that
will cover my 128mb i hope... but we can always upgrade...

If this server will have long mount times it won't be a problem, it is
mainly for backup so that should not be a problem.

but as i already said, i will come with a complete story when the server
goes live... (ill open a new topic to get a better overview)

Raymond
(you guys really helped me allot THANKS!!)

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 24, 2002, 11:58:59 AM4/24/02

to

The 64K blocks will make a major difference for memory handling -- and you
should get away with 128M (though I suspect 256M would be quite a bit better
here -- 64K/160G should be a bit more memory heavy than 4K/10G).

I still wonder (and will wait your report back) on >32G and >128G IDE handling
with that driver.

geoffs....@otcnetworks.invalid.com

unread,

Apr 24, 2002, 12:45:24 PM4/24/02

to

I have a utility that you can use to verify that the drive is working
correctly above the 32GB and 128GB boundaries. If you want to give it a
good certfication test before going live, download my HDTEST program from
http://www.otcnetworks.com/hdtest.htm

The primary (original) purpose of this utility was to detect BIOS/Driver
issues with HD's as capacities initially passed 512MB several years ago.
I've updated it to handle larger volumes and report transfer rates, but
it's still primarily a BIOS/driver/disk certification tool. Since all
access is through the OS, it verifies proper driver operation. With it,
you should be able to determine what limits you need to be aware of.

It's free, and I'll be glad to give you some suggestions on how to test
various configurations.

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 24, 2002, 6:32:42 PM4/24/02

to

Kewl!

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 24, 2002, 10:59:41 PM4/24/02

to

Hi

Good thing you selected the 64 k blocks.

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 24, 2002, 11:00:47 PM4/24/02

to

I think he should go to 256 right off the bat...

but you know me and memory. %^ )

Felton

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 24, 2002, 11:05:11 PM4/24/02

to

Barry

It was a quick rough guess.... to point out that LOTS of memory would be
required for 4 k blocks.. %^ )

or bait to get into a memory discussionn with you and Dave [gryn]

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 3:20:06 AM4/25/02

to

>
>or bait to get into a memory discussionn with you and Dave [gryn]

Yup

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 3:21:18 AM4/25/02

to

Right, the thing is, 160G/64K has about the same memory hit as 10G/4K.

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 7:35:37 AM4/25/02

to

Never thought I'd say this:

I gotta disagree. With RAM prices today, for <$100 for 512 meg I'd not go
to the 64 k blocks on 3.x and I would dump in 512 meg. Even though the
price per Meg of disk space is nothing, it will waste a lot of space and
resources and slow the system needlessly when for very little more it can
work well.

He needs more RAM.

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 11:04:33 AM4/25/02

to

Well, if the server is used for backup of workstation -- I guess my assumption
was that it was not being used for individual files, but for compressed and
combined backup files. If it is for individual files, then something like 16K
blocks and 512M of RAM would make more sense.

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 1:23:15 PM4/25/02

to

Even with strictly .img files on the drive I would still add the RAM and
back down the block sizes. The cost of the RAM is next to nothing in the
cost of this.

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 6:12:36 PM4/25/02

to

'zat mean I can tell Felton you agree with him on memory too? <G>

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 5:54:12 PM4/25/02

to

Understood.

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 6:18:37 PM4/25/02

to

You can always tell him that -- or anything else.

As to the accuracy of what you tell him....

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 11:36:08 PM4/25/02

to

well... you'll get no disagreement from me.

--
Felton Green (SysOp)

"Dave Lunn" <dl...@NOSPAMmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:dSRx8.625$B07....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 11:37:36 PM4/25/02

to

I get the distinct impression that you
were going to continue on with:
BUT not much....

%^ )

--
Felton Green (SysOp)

"Barry Schnur" <bsc...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:l50hcugvfn5u4oqp7...@4ax.com...

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 25, 2002, 11:38:12 PM4/25/02

to

hmm you agree with me on memory.

--
Felton Green (SysOp)

"Barry Schnur" <bsc...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:nhbfcug9hrmv38b8g...@4ax.com...

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 26, 2002, 3:03:06 AM4/26/02

to

Talk to my lawyers, we'll settle out of court <g>

Dave Lunn

unread,

Apr 26, 2002, 8:10:14 AM4/26/02

to

Raymond,

I don't think that was a good thing to do. AIR the Compaq 5100 is a
P100/133 class machine with Capacity of 128 meg RAM in 4 SIMM slots but a
BIOS upgrade to allow >8 gig disks may be available on the Compaq site. I
have never tried to used one of the BIOS progs to set up a Netware drive,
but I would expect trouble sooner or later.

woon...@wanadoo.nl

unread,

Apr 26, 2002, 7:59:28 AM4/26/02

to

I changed a little thing , i now use a Compaq Professional Workstation
5100.
It doesn't have a udma133 controller and a max HD support of 8gig but i
managed to work around this with EZ-Bios from Maxtor, i filled the machine
with 30gig data and everything is going well.

Only 1 little Q: is there a way to get my 2nd processor running, i already
found a article on www.novell.com that this isn't possible but i still
hope that there is a workarround for this?

I also have to agree with Dave that the ram aint that expensive anymore,
but i can always upgrade....... first see how this goes.

Greetings
Raymond

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 26, 2002, 8:27:02 AM4/26/02

to

LOL

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Apr 26, 2002, 8:29:21 AM4/26/02

to

Hi Raymond

You'll not get the use of the second processor with 3.x... sorry.

and you "may" have problems with the drive since translation software and
NetWare does not work together too well.

Barry Schnur

unread,

Apr 26, 2002, 9:49:02 AM4/26/02

to

>
>Only 1 little Q: is there a way to get my 2nd processor running, i already
>found a article on www.novell.com that this isn't possible but i still
>hope that there is a workarround for this?
>

Sure, upgrade to NW 6. <smile>.

NW 4.11 and up are SMP aware. But for nearly everything, adding a second CPU
(up through NW 5.1) adds only heat and instability (with NW 5.0 and 5.1 if you
are running Groupwise or some other product that actually uses the second CPU
you might see some benefit). NW 6 is the version of Netware at the OS level
that can take advantage of the second CPU.

Michael Mangoba

unread,

Jun 27, 2002, 1:43:07 PM6/27/02

to

I'm trying to convert out Netware 3.12 server from ipx to tcpip. I managed
to attached an ip address to it and successfully ping it from a workstation
but I could not browse or even see it on network neighborhood (Our
workstation are all Windows 98 se). What do I need to do to get our
workstation to see and login to our Netware 3.12 server using tcpip.

Ben A L Jemmett

unread,

Jun 27, 2002, 2:26:41 PM6/27/02

to

Unfortunately, that's not possible with NetWare 3. The functionality you
want first properly appeared in NetWare 5. All you can do with 3.x's TCP/IP
support is use it as a router or run services such as mail on it.

--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Jun 27, 2002, 6:09:28 PM6/27/02

to

Hi

It's as Ben has stated...

It will not act like anything other than a router for TCP/IP

Sorry

--
Felton Green (SysOp)
Novell Support Connection Forums

Bob Walton

unread,

Jun 28, 2002, 5:05:48 PM6/28/02

to

However, if workstation internet connectivity over a Novell network is the
goal, good old Netware 3.12/3.20 IPX/SPX will allow this seamlessly through
the network switch/hub cabled to a router, all without a drop of TCP/IP!
Typically, a router with dynamic host (DHCP) capability takes care of the
addressing. (This has been discussed in several topics on the forums.)

-Bob

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Jun 28, 2002, 5:33:35 PM6/28/02

to

Hi Bob..

yep, but you have to be mindful of the security aspects of the new setup

Dave Kearns-NSCV

unread,

Jun 28, 2002, 5:45:27 PM6/28/02

to

There's nothing particularly insecure in what Bob describes, though.
One should be "mindful of the security aspects " of any changes
made...

-dave

Felton Green (SysOp)

unread,

Jun 28, 2002, 5:54:07 PM6/28/02

to

That in and of itself .. no.

but most workstations are open for the world to see...not unlike Brainshare
and a few people "snooping"..

Zonealarm or BlackIce should be considered.

Bob Walton

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 11:27:15 AM7/1/02

to

Hi Felton,

Many of the routers today contain rather secure firewall protection, but I
always recommend additional software if the system admin feels the network
is insecure at that level of protection.

BW

"Felton Green (SysOp)" <felton...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:PC4T8.41$KP5...@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...

Bob Walton

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 1:06:56 PM7/1/02

to

However, the real meat of the subject is that 3.12/3.20 IPX will allow
workstation connection to the Internet without TCP/IP. There seems to be a
prevailing attitude and myth that it just won't work on 3.12 due to it's
TCP/IP limitations. Yes, it is true that 3.12/3.20 will only route TCP/IP,
but the routers make up for this limitation by letting IPX do the work. As
I've said before, the good routers aren't bothered by the underlying
transport protocols. From my point of view, this adds life to an old, but
practically bullet-proof, operating system. And when you really need this
connectivity, it's pretty handy to have it available so easily without a
major change of NOS. For the IT managers on a budget, this adds up to bucks
and job security.

BW

"Bob Walton" <wal...@kdsi.net> wrote in message
news:nx_T8.66$ZF4....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...

Ben A L Jemmett

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 2:09:21 PM7/1/02

to

> However, the real meat of the subject is that 3.12/3.20 IPX will allow
> workstation connection to the Internet without TCP/IP.

Well, yes, but the question was 'is it possible to log into NetWare 3 via
TCP/IP'; the answer to this is no (with an unless if we're being pedantic).

Bob Walton

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 3:58:35 PM7/1/02

to

"Ben A L Jemmett" <bal.j...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lV0U8.82$UR4....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...

> > However, the real meat of the subject is that 3.12/3.20 IPX will allow
> > workstation connection to the Internet without TCP/IP.
>
> Well, yes, but the question was 'is it possible to log into NetWare 3 via
> TCP/IP'; the answer to this is no (with an unless if we're being
pedantic).
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ben A L Jemmett.

Ben,

Unless a person is clairvoyant, like you apparently are, it isn't clear from
the text just what is his exact purpose for a TCP/IP login. If answering an
anticipated need is pedandic, then I stand convicted. Oh, and Ben, I didn't
realize you were given the task of forum moderator? Cheerio!

BW

Ben A L Jemmett

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 5:33:01 PM7/1/02

to

"Bob Walton" <wal...@kdsi.net> wrote in message

news:Lv2U8.71$P15....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...

> Unless a person is clairvoyant, like you apparently are, it isn't clear
from
> the text just what is his exact purpose for a TCP/IP login.

"Michael Mangoba" <mman...@silverlegacy.com> wrote in message
news:L8IS8.56$gb3....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...
: What do I need to do to get our workstation to see and

: login to our Netware 3.12 server using tcpip.

The question was 'how do I log in to Netware 3.12 using TCP/IP'. The answer
is, you can't, unless you want to use the IP Tunnel and only have machines
running the IPTUNNEL.COM ODI driver on the network. The question was not
'how do I use Netware 3.12 to connect my workstations to the internet'.

> Oh, and Ben, I didn't
> realize you were given the task of forum moderator? Cheerio!

Was I trying to moderate the forum? No. I simply pointed out that the
question had nothing whatsoever to do with the Internet or routers, just
logging into NetWare 3 using TCP/IP. Nor, by the way, did I say it would be
pedantic to talk about an anticipated need; rather that there is a rather
nasty way to use TCP/IP to log into NetWare 3, but it's not something that'd
be useful in this situation, so to discuss it would simply be to give a
pedantically correct answer with little utility. Sorry if I've caused
offence.

--
Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.

(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)

Dave Kearns-NSCV

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 5:59:53 PM7/1/02

to

Bob, Ben - none of your backchat over here. Take it out into the
community, where it belongs!

:)ave

Bob Walton

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 6:25:28 PM7/1/02

to

Dave,

You've got it!

BW

"Dave Kearns-NSCV" <dke...@nomail.to.me> wrote in message
news:th4U8.213$Kd5....@prv-forum2.provo.novell.com...

Bob Walton

unread,

Jul 1, 2002, 6:21:10 PM7/1/02

to

Big Ben,

This will be my last comment on the subject with you about just what the
original question was or was not, or who has the right to comment - even if
you personally think it is off subject!

If this guy's bottom line need for TCP/IP should happen to be to establish
internet communications, (and that was my stated IF in the line: "However,

if workstation internet connectivity over a Novell network is the

goal...."), then the dialogue just may have saved him a heck of a lot of
time, money and frustration, or for that matter, anyone else reading this!
We saved a new client a few bucks who was told by his former consultant that
there was no way 3.12 would provide web communications, period. There are a
heck-of-a lot of techs who flatly believe and state that 3.12/3.20 will not
provide internet connectivity simply because of the known obsolete TCP/IP,
without regard to what the router is doing with IPX. It's been thusly
stated several times on these forums.

BW

Billy Ko

unread,

Jul 23, 2002, 9:48:41 AM7/23/02

to

Ouch! But true, too. I've never had to reboot my Novell server, except for
hardware failures, which even an NOS can't prevent. Can't say the same thing
about NT. Not even close. :)

Bill

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:28:36 GMT, Barry Schnur wrote:

:>>mount time would get to be a bit long...
:>
:>Yes, but this isn't NT, mount once a year <g>
:>
:>
:>
:>Barry Schnur