haverlan@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HAVERLAND MARC BRADLEY) (09/13/89)
I'm setting up Novell ELS II in non-dedicated mode. It seems that a user on the file server can do a ctrl-alt-delete and reboot the file server! Anyone know how to block this? Thanks Marc Haverland haverlan@tramp.colorado.edu
rh1m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rudi Jay Halbright) (09/14/89)
As far as I know, there is no way to block this using Novell. Your best bet is to run the server dedicated. Unforunately there is no way to run ELS-II in an 80286 dedicated mode, so either you can run the 8086 version as a dedicated server, or simply don't allow anyone to use the server (e.g. put it in console mode, and leave it there). Alternatively there may be some public domain patch (try simtel) that prevents the ctrl-alt-del sequence from working. I've found that if a program crashes on the file server it generally will not down the network, but sometimes (rarely) it will. -Rudi Halbright rh1m@andrew.cmu.edu
bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) (09/14/89)
From article <11596@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by haverlan@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HAVERLAND MARC BRADLEY): > I'm setting up Novell ELS II in non-dedicated mode. It seems that a user > on the file server can do a ctrl-alt-delete and reboot the file server! > > Anyone know how to block this? Yes. Run UNIX :) :) :) -- No working paths available!
dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon(0000)) (09/18/89)
In article <358@csense.UUCP> bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes: >From article <11596@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by haverlan@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HAVERLAND MARC BRADLEY): >> I'm setting up Novell ELS II in non-dedicated mode. It seems that a user >> on the file server can do a ctrl-alt-delete and reboot the file server! >> Anyone know how to block this? > >Run UNIX :) :) :) > Or Just run dedicated. Non-dedicated mode is all bad marketing hype anyway. You will see vast performance differences by running dedicated. And you wont have users poking around on your server. Tom Dixon AT&T Paradyne uunet!pdn!dixon
mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu (Mike Richey) (09/19/89)
In article <6552@pdn.paradyne.com> dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon) writes: >In article <358@csense.UUCP> bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes: >>From article <11596@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by haverlan@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HAVERLAND MARC BRADLEY): >>> I'm setting up Novell ELS II in non-dedicated mode. It seems that a user >Or > >Just run dedicated. Non-dedicated mode is all bad marketing hype >anyway. You will see vast performance differences by running dedicated. >And you wont have users poking around on your server. > If you run non dedicated mode on ELS II, it will emulate the older version of Netware 86. You'll only be able to use 640KB of RAM. There is a VAP that comes with ADV Netware 286, and SFT that's called the keyboard VAP. On ADV netware it takes a connection (bad news for ELS since you only get 8 connections), and it takes some RAM. Look in your diskette distribution, it should be there with the VAP package. (the same one perhaps that the MAC VAPs come with) This will give you the capability of blocking the CTRL-ALT- DEL sequence on the server. Better yet, get regular ADV Netware. good luck. Michael S. Richey InterNet: mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu BITNET: mrichey@UCI Voice: (714) 856-8374 University of California, Irvine Network and Telecommunications Services 342 Computer Science Irvine, CA 92717
palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (09/19/89)
From article <6552@pdn.paradyne.com>, by dixon@gumby.paradyne.com (0000-Tom Dixon(0000)): > In article <358@csense.UUCP> bote@csense.UUCP (John Boteler) writes: >>From article <11596@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, by haverlan@tramp.Colorado.EDU (HAVERLAND MARC BRADLEY): >>> I'm setting up Novell ELS II in non-dedicated mode. It seems that a user >>> on the file server can do a ctrl-alt-delete and reboot the file server! >>> Anyone know how to block this? >> >>Run UNIX :) :) :) >> > Or > > Just run dedicated. Non-dedicated mode is all bad marketing hype > anyway. You will see vast performance differences by running dedicated. > And you wont have users poking around on your server. Why does Novell sell a non-dedicated mode and everyone complains it works so poorly and pawns it off on bad marketing hype. I suspect there are alot of networks where many of the pc are AT's with large drives and users want to mantain thier software themselfs and share the data. Giveing up your system to be a dedicated server sounds like a dumb idea. So what's the big deal rebooting the file server in the none-dedicated mode? Trashes files on the network? Brings the whole network down. I kinda like the remark with the :) :) Ever sence I moved over to a unix network I have had 98% uptime. I gave up on novell to many times reformating disk because some software package was not "net aware" and trashed the file system. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda (A XBBS System) 2-lines BBS: (415)623-8809 2400/1200 (415)623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200
mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu (Mike Richey) (09/20/89)
In article <8111@megatest.UUCP> palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > Why does Novell sell a non-dedicated mode and everyone complains it > works so poorly and pawns it off on bad marketing hype. I suspect Novell prouced Non dedicated because their marketing department saw an avenue for sales. It was marketing. Apparently Novell did not see the problems that may have and have come up. > to a unix network I have had 98% uptime. I gave up on novell to > many times reformating disk because some software package was not > "net aware" and trashed the file system. I've never had Netware trash because a program was not Netware aware. But this is my experience. I managed four Novel file servers at my previous place of employment. I had 100% uptime on three servers for fourteen months til I left. (read, NO DOWN time, except for standard maintenace) The fourth was a different story. This wasn't the fault of Netware, but hard- ware faults. I'm not advocating that Netware is flawless. Like I said, this is my experience. Michael S. Richey Internet: mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu Bitnet: MRichey@UCI CompuServe: 71650,3132 Voice: (714) 856-8374 University of California, Irvine Network and Telecommunication Services 342 Computer Science Irvine, CA 92717
palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) (09/20/89)
From article <2762@orion.cf.uci.edu>, by mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu (Mike Richey): > In article <8111@megatest.UUCP> palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: > >> Why does Novell sell a non-dedicated mode and everyone complains it >> works so poorly and pawns it off on bad marketing hype. I suspect > Novell prouced Non dedicated because their marketing department saw an > avenue for sales. It was marketing. Apparently Novell did not see the > problems that may have and have come up. Oh no! The case of the bozo's in the marketing did it again. > >> to a unix network I have had 98% uptime. I gave up on novell to >> many times reformating disk because some software package was not >> "net aware" and trashed the file system. > > I've never had Netware trash because a program was not Netware aware. But this > is my experience. I managed four Novel file servers at my previous place of > employment. I had 100% uptime on three servers for fourteen months til I left. > (read, NO DOWN time, except for standard maintenace) I calculate my maintenace as downtime. I had a group of software engineers developing software and off coarse their would bound to be situations in dos where thier code caused the problem. I not going to say UNIX is perfect either but it seems to offer alot more protection offered by the kernel. Heck by the time Novel finishs up their 386 specific version, gets all the drivers and most of the bugs worked out it's going to resemble a UNIX file server anyway. In the end the users are going to pay through the nose. At least Novel is doing something right offering a soulution to connect unix hosts. The best part of the whole saga is yet to be seen when more users get interconnected between Novel's and they talk about the prices of the filesever systems. I know you can't compare apples and oranges, but it's fruit and who ever paid ten dollars for an apple didn't shop very well. > > The fourth was a different story. This wasn't the fault of Netware, but hard- > ware faults. I'm not advocating that Netware is flawless. Like I said, this is > my experience. Yeah I seen this, intermittent bad spots on disks. I still think Novel's surface scan is not as robust as unix's. What really would be interesting to see a article about a PC-NFS client/server -> PC-NFS client/server comprared to a Novel nondedicated/client/sever -> Novell nondedicated/client/server. ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda *Home of Fiver BBS* login: bbs Work: {sun,decwrl,pyramid}!megatest!palowoda Home: {sun}ys2!fiver!palowoda (A XBBS System) 2-lines BBS: (415)623-8809 2400/1200 (415)623-8806 1200/2400/9600/19200
mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu (Mike Richey) (09/20/89)
In article <8195@megatest.UUCP> palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: >From article <2762@orion.cf.uci.edu>, by mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu (Mike Richey): >> In article <8111@megatest.UUCP> palowoda@megatest.UUCP (Bob Palowoda) writes: >> >>> Why does Novell sell a non-dedicated mode and everyone complains it >>> works so poorly and pawns it off on bad marketing hype. I suspect > >> is my experience. I managed four Novell file servers at my previous place of >>employment. I had 100% uptime on three servers for fourteen months til I left. >> (read, NO DOWN time, except for standard maintenace) > > I calculate my maintenace as downtime. I had a group of software >engineers developing software and off coarse their would bound to Okay, so we disagree on what maintenance is (vs down time). Let me say that the servers did not fail. They had battery backup to be sure. >> The fourth was a different story. This wasn't the fault of Netware, but >>hard ware faults. I'm not advocating that Netware is flawless. Like I said, >>this was my experience. > Yeah I seen this, intermittent bad spots on disks. I still think Novel's > surface scan is not as robust as unix's. Hotfix is now used in the advanced version of Netware. This perform a read after write verify of the block written. If the verify is not successful, the block is relocated. The need to run the surface scan in compsurf has pretty much been elliminated. Now, without justifying all of this I'm sure this is open to attack, but I'm not trying to convert anyone to Netware, so I'll leave out the specifics as to why. It used to be that a 160 meg drive would take around 48 hours to certify the disk for the recommended 3 passes. I didn't mention bad spots on the hard disk at all. This was your assumption. Since you brought it up. I had a power supply fail (not the fault of the O/S) A memory failure, which produced NMI interrupts, I will admit that Netware does not take to kindly to memory failures where the kernel exists, but what O/Ss for 80X86 products do. (Does Unix? I really don't know) I had an Ethernet card fail in the server, and a disply adapter. None of these were the cause of the O/S. But each time this server failed, I was sweating. So what's the point, you don't like Netware? Okay. so be it. Michael S. Richey Internet: mrichey@orion.cf.uci.edu Bitnet: MRichey@UCI CompuServe: 71650,3132 Voice: (714) 856-8374 University of California, Irvine Network and Telecommunication Services 342 Computer Science Irvine, CA 92717