I'm slowly piecing together a vintage homelab. Right now I have a 486 dual booting MS-DOS and OS/2 Warp 3, and a PIII running OS/2 Warp 4.
Any recommendations on good ways to get these two talking to each other, while expanding it to others in the future? Netware? Samba? Whatever IBM calls all those weird things OS/2 comes with?
Any recommendations on good ways to get these two talking to each
other, while expanding it to others in the future? Netware? Samba? Whatever IBM calls all those weird things OS/2 comes with?
I'm aware of RetroNAS and intend to look at it - although the only dedicated server I have to throw it on is FreeBSD and it looks like
it's built around Debian packages for ease of installation.
Hello deepthaw!
21 Nov 23 11:46, you wrote to all:
Any recommendations on good ways to get these two talking to each
other, while expanding it to others in the future? Netware?
Samba? Whatever IBM calls all those weird things OS/2 comes with?
I remember back when I used OS/2 that it had a great TCP stack. I
shared files just by setting up a local FTP server in one machine and accesing it from the other :) But I know you can setup netbios and
connect to windows networks.
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
yeah i'm using ftp and as it works well i was lazy to configure nfs or samba :)
Regards,
--
dp
deepthaw wrote to All <=-
I'm slowly piecing together a vintage homelab. Right now I have a 486
dual booting MS-DOS and OS/2 Warp 3, and a PIII running OS/2 Warp 4.
Any recommendations on good ways to get these two talking to each
other, while expanding it to others in the future? Netware? Samba? Whatever IBM calls all those weird things OS/2 comes with?
When I ran the two, I used Lantastic and created a DOS VDM in OS/2 to
talk to the DOS network using the DOS Lantastic stack and it worked
amazingly well. Any DOS peer-to-peer network should work similarly -
personal netware, maybe?
If memory serves, there was some way to connect DOS via Samba, but it's been years since I'd even thought about that.
amazingly well. Any DOS peer-to-peer network should work similarly - personal netware, maybe?
Orphan wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I remember I used Lantastic for a while and it worked amazingly well..
in DOS.
Yeah, being able to do screen redirection, drive redirection, shared drives and shared printers in DOS was pretty cool. If memory serves,
the dedicated LANTastic cards only did 5 mbps, which was sufficient
back then. It let me run the BBS headless and run a console in a DOS window is OS/2, which I thought was Pretty Damn Cool.
Yeah, being able to do screen redirection, drive redirection, shared drives and shared printers in DOS was pretty cool. If memory serves, the dedicated LANTastic cards only did 5 mbps, which was sufficient back
then. It let me run the BBS headless and run a console in a DOS window
is OS/2, which I thought was Pretty Damn Cool.
Orphan wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Yes I actually enjoyed it a lot. I don't remember the speed (specifications) but I do remember that it was plenty enough for what I did. For BBS in OS/2 its amazing.
Spectre wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Out of interest, what kind of card only did 5mbps? Never saw anything
like that.
They were proprietary, not Ethernet. I'm pretty sure ARCnet was 5 mbps, which ended up performing as well if not better than Ethernet since it didn't have issues with collisions. ARCnet was a token-passing algorithm like Token Ring.
The cards were some sort of proprietary protocol that ran over coax
with terminators, like ethernet. Where Ethernet was 10mbps, LANtastic
was something like 2 mbps, which was sufficient for DOS networking, printer sharing and so on.
Fast forward 30 years and I've got gigabit networking in my house...
They were proprietary, not Ethernet. I'm pretty sure ARCnet was 5 mbps, which ended up performing as well if not better than Ethernet since it didn't have issues with collisions. ARCnet was a token-passing algorithm like Token Ring.
They were proprietary, not Ethernet. I'm pretty sure ARCnet was 5 mbp which ended up performing as well if not better than Ethernet since i didn't have issues with collisions. ARCnet was a token-passing algori like Token Ring.
Hehe, horses for courses... Ethernet without significant load ought to be faster than Token Ring. Of course as soon as you load it up, and CD and resolution were a bit more ordinary.. Only ever saw the odd ARCnet
card.. and by the TokenRing cards were popping up, thin ethernet was already in use.. There's also meant to be an 8Mbp TokenRing too If'n I recall right..
Spectre wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Hehe, horses for courses... Ethernet without significant load ought to
be faster than Token Ring. Of course as soon as you load it up, and CD
and resolution were a bit more ordinary..
Only ever saw the odd ARCnet
card.. and by the TokenRing cards were popping up, thin ethernet was already in use.. There's also meant to be an 8Mbp TokenRing too If'n I recall right..
tenser wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I believe ARCnet was 2.5 Mbps, but it was token-based and I will absolutely buy that it beat early Ethernet.
tenser wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I believe ARCnet was 2.5 Mbps, but it was token-based and I will absolutely buy that it beat early Ethernet.
Back then, the clod who managed our company's networks put all of the IT desktops into the same segment as the servers. We'd get horrible performance during the day, then make the servers unavailable when we played Quake after hours.
I don't use the term "clod" lightly. He insisted on Cat 5 jacks and premise cabling, then terminated them on 66 blocks and cross-connected every jack using 2 pair cross-connect cable to a set up 66 blocks that connected via AMP cable to the switch. The 66 blocks were only CAT3, the cross-connect cables were *lucky* if they supported CAT3.
On 01 Dec 2023 at 08:05a, poindexter FORTRAN pondered and said...
They were proprietary, not Ethernet. I'm pretty sure ARCnet was
5 mbps, which ended up performing as well if not better than
Ethernet since it didn't have issues with collisions. ARCnet was
a token-passing algorithm like Token Ring.
I believe ARCnet was 2.5 Mbps, but it was token-based and I will
absolutely buy that it beat early Ethernet.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64) * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin,
New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
I don't use the term "clod" lightly. He insisted on Cat 5 jacks and
premise cabling, then terminated them on 66 blocks and cross-connected every jack using 2 pair cross-connect cable to a set up 66 blocks that connected via AMP cable to the switch. The 66 blocks were only CAT3, th cross-connect cables were *lucky* if they supported CAT3.
To which Bf2K+ replies...
The first two Netware networks that I ever set up wer on ARCnet systems They worked very well but I don't remember ethernet being available at
that time... of course these days I don't remember much of anything :)
To which Bf2K+ replies...
The first two Netware networks that I ever set up wer on ARCnet sys They worked very well but I don't remember ethernet being available that time... of course these days I don't remember much of anything
Say it ain't so BF2K+!! You, forgetting things? LOL!
I am right there with you. I think CRS is catching up to me as well. --Matt
Say it ain't so BF2K+!! You, forgetting things? LOL! I am right there
with you. I think CRS is catching up to me as well. --Matt
Mhansel739 wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
My only comment - what the hell was with this "clod"? Running CAT5 but cross-connecting to 66-blocks? I know for sure there were CAT5 patch panels back in the day. SMH! I am sorry that you had to endure that.
Thank goodness for today and the knowledge we have. I hope nobody in
their right mind would do that again.
--Matt
Sysop: | altere |
---|---|
Location: | Houston, TX |
Users: | 66 |
Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
Uptime: | 14:36:28 |
Calls: | 755 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 7,710 |
Messages: | 293,632 |