[comp.os.os2.misc] MS LAN Man: HPFS386/DOS compat., non-/dedicated

lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (02/23/91)

I received MS LAN Manager 2.0 yesterday, but haven't begun to receive CPU's,
or network cards and cable.  So I'm prepping...

I noticed that by using HPFS386 (and local security) I give up my ability
to use the DOS box.  It makes sense to me that OS/2 1.3 is designed around
the 286 and HPFS386 around the 386 so that's the problem (in an abstract way),
but I want to know if this remains a problem when running OS/2 2.0

Also, I am planning to run some (not many) tasks at the server.  I have 16MB
RAM, 386DX/33.  At the server, I'll be running MS SQL Server, Imara Document
Filing System (Server Edition), Sytron's Sytos Plus Backup, file replication,
and some various utilities (using 'at').  I'm only concerned about the speed of
the SQL and Document servers (and that the backup can keep up with the DAT). 
The other processes should run with low priority.  Should I set up for a
dedicated or non-dedicated server?  From what I've read, the dedicated setting
doesn't leave many resources available for non-network apps.  I haven't received
the SQL or Document Server so I don't know if they modify the net parameters
for themselves.

LAN Manager still (now that'd I've read more about it) seems better than 
Netware/386 (from what little I've read of it, and experienced with Netware/286)and the difference in price (LM - $995, NW/386 - $7995 retail) is substantial.
I think that the HPFS386 and security make LAN Manager a viable threat to
Netware.  When are people going to start switching???

Well, back to the books.  My SO's going on tour for the weekend so I'm planning
to learn everything there is to know (and find in the docs I have) about LAN
Man. this weekend.  I'm sure I'll come up with more questions.

I know that there are Microsoft people on-line, but I'm also willing to answer
any questions.  Perhaps I can give the consumer point of view to anyone thinking
of using LAN Man.

--kyler

P.S.  Here's the current configuration (as ordered).  I'm interested in any
comments/experiences/suggestions.

Server:	Northgate 386DX-33, 16MB RAM, 2*200MB IDE HD
	Maynard 1300 DAT, Adaptec SCSI controller

Workstations (2): Northgate 386SX-20, 8MB RAM, 40MB IDE HD
Workstation (1):  Zenith 386DX-25, 8MB RAM, 100MB HD

Network:  3COM 3C503TP adapters
	  Synoptics 12 port concentrator

Misc:  HP ScanJet+
       Epson ES300C (color scanner)
       Intel SatisFAXtion

Software:  LAN Manager 2.0
	   IBM OS/2 1.3 EE (on Zenith)
	   Northgate flavor MS OS/2 1.21 (soon 1.3?!?)
	   Sytron Sytos Plus File Backup Manager (LAN Manager version)
	   Imara Document Filing System (Server Edition)
	   Ventura Gold 3.0 for OS/2
	   Corel DRAW! for OS/2
	   MS Word for OS/2
	   Xywrite II Plus (for DOS)

I'm doing publishing on the Zenith now.  This will remain one of the prime
jobs on the network.  I want to introduce personnel files, record keeping,
'groupware', general word processing,  and a (printed and MIDI) music database.

I need to tap into a university computer system to retrieve info to satisfy
parts of SQL queries (using a 3270 connection).  I saw a product that was
described as being capable of doing this, but my mental filing system fails
to recall it.  Anyone know of it?

goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu (02/25/91)

In article <6694@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
> I received MS LAN Manager 2.0 yesterday, but haven't begun to receive CPU's,
> or network cards and cable.  So I'm prepping...
> 
> I noticed that by using HPFS386 (and local security) I give up my ability
> to use the DOS box.  It makes sense to me that OS/2 1.3 is designed around
> the 286 and HPFS386 around the 386 so that's the problem (in an abstract way),
> but I want to know if this remains a problem when running OS/2 2.0
You don't have to give up the DOS box if you don't want to.  What you can do
is use the old (286-specific) version of HPFS, and then change the 
"PROTECTONLY=YES" statement to "PROTECTONLY=NO".  (If you use the HPFS386,
then you'll get an error message on boot.)  I understand that if you do this,
you lose user file security on the server, if you run user security.  (I can't
guarantee that this will work in your setup, but it works for me....)
> 
> Also, I am planning to run some (not many) tasks at the server.  I have 16MB
> RAM, 386DX/33.  At the server, I'll be running MS SQL Server, Imara Document
> Filing System (Server Edition), Sytron's Sytos Plus Backup, file replication,
> and some various utilities (using 'at').  I'm only concerned about the speed of
> the SQL and Document servers (and that the backup can keep up with the DAT). 
> The other processes should run with low priority.  Should I set up for a
> dedicated or non-dedicated server?  From what I've read, the dedicated setting
> doesn't leave many resources available for non-network apps.  I haven't received
> the SQL or Document Server so I don't know if they modify the net parameters
> for themselves.
I set up for non-dedicated server, and don't see any real performance
degradation (20MHz 386DX) But I'm currently running the teeniest network
imagineable (2  computers).  Your mileage may vary.
> 
... stuff deleted....

		- adrian

lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) (02/27/91)

In article <323.27c8ea45@mbcl.rutgers.edu> goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>In article <6694@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>> I noticed that by using HPFS386 (and local security) I give up my ability
>> to use the DOS box.  It makes sense to me that OS/2 1.3 is designed around
>You don't have to give up the DOS box if you don't want to.  What you can do
>is use the old (286-specific) version of HPFS, and then change the

Yes, but then I lose local security unless I'm misunderstanding the docs.  Also
the docs keep stating something like "And if your partition was already HPFS
formatted, installation will reformat it as HPFS386..."  Whoa!  Sounds scary to
me!  I'm going to backup everything before I start.

--kyler

goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu (02/27/91)

In article <6943@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
> In article <323.27c8ea45@mbcl.rutgers.edu> goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
>>In article <6694@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>>> I noticed that by using HPFS386 (and local security) I give up my ability
>>> to use the DOS box.  It makes sense to me that OS/2 1.3 is designed around
>>You don't have to give up the DOS box if you don't want to.  What you can do
>>is use the old (286-specific) version of HPFS, and then change the
> 
> Yes, but then I lose local security unless I'm misunderstanding the docs.  Also
> the docs keep stating something like "And if your partition was already HPFS
> formatted, installation will reformat it as HPFS386..."  Whoa!  Sounds scary to
> me!  I'm going to backup everything before I start.

Yes, you do lose local security if you go back to the 286-specific version 
of the HPFS. That didn't matter for me (I needed the DOS box more).  I also
did boot with the DOS box & the HPFS386; it complained on boot, but
the OS/2 & Lan Man did come up all the way.  You might try that, but you
may get unexpected crashes.

Adrian

gregj@microsoft.UUCP (Greg JONES) (03/01/91)

In article <323.27c8ea45@mbcl.rutgers.edu>, goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
> In article <6694@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
> > I noticed that by using HPFS386 (and local security) I give up my ability
> > to use the DOS box.  It makes sense to me that OS/2 1.3 is designed around
> > the 286 and HPFS386 around the 386 so that's the problem (in an abstract way),
> > but I want to know if this remains a problem when running OS/2 2.0
> You don't have to give up the DOS box if you don't want to.  What you can do
> is use the old (286-specific) version of HPFS, and then change the 
> "PROTECTONLY=YES" statement to "PROTECTONLY=NO".  (If you use the HPFS386,
> then you'll get an error message on boot.)  I understand that if you do this,
> you lose user file security on the server, if you run user security.

HPFS386 doesn't support the DOS box because handling interrupts (especially
network interrupts) in real mode, in 386 code on a 286 OS, is an incredible
pain in driver-level software.  Because DOS boxes work differently in OS/2 2.0
this restriction will disappear then.  (Disclaimer:  I have no idea whether
or not HPFS386 will exist for OS/2 2.0.  I'm not privy to long-term strategy.)

Using HPFS286 you can still have user-level security remotely, just as you
can on FAT file systems.  Local security is out though.  The bit about
"reformatting as HPFS386" is probably misleading documentation.  HPFS386
and HPFS use the same disk format;  it's just the access information that's
stored differently, so when you switch filesystems your ACLs have to be
moved.  I believe the LANMAN installer will do this for you;  if not, I
believe BACKACC and RESTACC are the utilities you need to run.

> > Also, I am planning to run some (not many) tasks at the server.  I have 16MB
> > RAM, 386DX/33.  At the server, I'll be running MS SQL Server, Imara Document
> > Filing System (Server Edition), Sytron's Sytos Plus Backup, file replication,
> > and some various utilities (using 'at').

SQL Server needs a fair amount of memory to run well.  Set up as non-
dedicated.  "Dedicated" really refers to the file server itself;  it's
for servers that do nothing but provide file service (plus occasional
apps like backup and so forth).  Bigger systems like SQL qualify as
"non-dedicated".

uunet!microsoft!gregj
Greg Jones, MS network development
[I just happen to work here.  Sheer coincidence.]

seg@ingres.com (scott e garfinkle) (03/05/91)

It is also worth noting that, if you simply replace HPFS386 with HPFS, you
may "lose" part of your directory tree.  I imagine this has to do with the
limit to the number of EAs in HPFS (I forget what it is) that is removed with
HPFS386.  Anyway, a coworker did this, and suddenly, a whole directory
disappeared.  It came back when he reloaded HPFS386.  He needed to do a
complete backup, reformat, and restore to use HPFS.  This was, btw, HPFS386
from Lanman 2.0 and HPFS from OS2 1.3 SE.
	-scott e. garfinkle
standard disclaimer

gregj@microsoft.UUCP (Greg JONES) (03/07/91)

In article <328.27cb8759@mbcl.rutgers.edu>, goldman@mbcl.rutgers.edu writes:
> Yes, you do lose local security if you go back to the 286-specific version 
> of the HPFS. That didn't matter for me (I needed the DOS box more).  I also
> did boot with the DOS box & the HPFS386; it complained on boot, but
> the OS/2 & Lan Man did come up all the way.  You might try that, but you
> may get unexpected crashes.

Worry not, you won't crash.  It wouldn't be too polite if you accidentally
turned on the DOS box and we wouldn't let you turn it back off without
reinstalling OS/2.  HPFS386 will just refuse to do anything that would
be incompatible with the DOS box.  This includes starting the lazy write
daemon and the server.  It also includes its timer mechanism, so file
modification times won't be set accurately.  But all the file system
functionality is still there, and of course other LANMAN components (like
the workstation) are unaffected.

uunet!microsoft!gregj
Greg Jones, MS network development
[I just happen to work here.  Sheer coincidence.]

alistair@microsoft.UUCP (Alistair BANKS) (03/12/91)

In article <1991Mar4.173710.11284@ingres.Ingres.COM> seg@ingres.com (scott e garfinkle) writes:
>It is also worth noting that, if you simply replace HPFS386 with HPFS, you
>may "lose" part of your directory tree.  I imagine this has to do with the
>limit to the number of EAs in HPFS (I forget what it is) that is removed with
>HPFS386.  Anyway, a coworker did this, and suddenly, a whole directory
>disappeared.  It came back when he reloaded HPFS386.  He needed to do a
>complete backup, reformat, and restore to use HPFS.  This was, btw, HPFS386
>from Lanman 2.0 and HPFS from OS2 1.3 SE.


You don't actually "lose" any part of your disk - HPFS386 _is_ secure,
so when you replace it with HPFS, it would be crazy if that simply
removed all security - so those parts of your disk you think you are
losing, are actually those parts with restricted access - as recorded
in the ACL entries on the disk.

So the solution is, if you want to move from hpfs386 to hpfs, first
remove all ACL entries on the HPFS386 partition, then switch.

See the NET ACCESS command.

Alistair Banks, Microsoft.