Linux and IBM NetVista Computers

[DavidMD]

Hello, 'cybertron'.

Thanks for your detailed and patient message. You are helping me set up an actual LAN rather than simply using my router to enable multiple computers to access the Internet.

Of course, the picture will be different, as you depicted in your ASCII sketch, once my switch arrives next week or late this week.

Thanks for telling me about the hardware DHCP server failing on you. Because Macsense has not released a firmware update for this router/switch/firewall since 2002 (I just checked), they obviously will not release any more.

If the DHCP component goes bad, I am in financial trouble. (This Macsense unit cost over $200 from a retail vendor when I purchased it new; the problem of having to reset it randomly did not set in for a while -- but it was after the warranty expired, of course.)

Thank you so much, 'cybertron'!

Cordially,

David

That's correct. You're not resetting because of the switch part (most likely anyway, there's always a very slight possibility that the switch is failing), just the router part.


Sounds fine.


You have.

If there's no new firmware available from the manufacturer, I'm not sure there's much you can do. Some routers can be reflashed with Linux-based firmware, but that's not a trivial process and there is some fairly significant danger to doing so.

Actually, the switches themselves do no traffic monitoring/blocking/etc. All they do is send traffic on to the right location. For preventing internet traffic from getting into your network you'll still need your router and its firewall.

Well, not strictly speaking. I'm using the built-in switch on my wireless router, much as you are right now. A switch as far as I know would not have a firewall built-in. I believe only routers do. Certainly none of the consumer switches that can be bought at a reasonable price would have them.

Actually I have. The DHCP server on my wireless router used to drop out intermittently on me until I got an updated firmware version.

Yep.


You should be able to do this. I'm pretty sure Suse will even help you set it up with Yast.


Correct.


You seem to be catching on just fine. It's a little hard to explain this stuff abstractly on a forum. It helps a lot if you have someone physically present who can show you exactly how everything should fit together. One thing you might want to do is look up the difference between a router and a switch. Wikipedia might be helpful here. Then again, maybe not. You never really know with Wikipedia.

Also, here's a little ascii-art diagram of what your network would look like with another switch:

Internet ------ RouterPort1 -------------SwitchPort1---Computer
                      Port2---Computer         Port2---Computer
                      Port3---Computer         Port3---Empty
                      Port4---Computer         Port4---Empty
                                               Port5---Empty

All of the computers should be able to talk to each other in this setup, but because the router is between the internet and all of them nothing from the internet can get in. Hopefully it clears things up a little.

[cybertron]

By the way, 'cybertron', do I need an uplink cable to connect the switch to my router/firewall, or can I use a regular CAT-5 (patch) cable? I thank you, in advance, for the information.

Yes, you should be able to use any regular cable.

[DavidMD]

Hello, yet, again, 'cybertron'.

Yes, you should be able to use any regular cable.

Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply.

Based on the fact sheet that I have for the Netgear switch, the ports do autodetection, so that I can simply connect the cable to any port on my switch and on my router.

I never thought that I would use all of the ports on my four-port router, but the more I get into Linux, the more tempting it is to hang onto hardware, and the more interesting Linux projects I want to attempt.

Again, thank you!

Cordially,

David

P.S. -- As I mentioned in a previous message, I chose this Netgear five-port switch (with a metal case) over another Netgear switch that had a plastic case, but apparently lacks the plastic stand in the illustration (based upon the reviews). I don't know if buffer size is that critical, but the switch I chose has a 128k buffer, and the one I did not chose has a 64k buffer.

A couple of the twenty-six reviews mentioned that the metal case gets hot, but the other reviews did not mention anything about heat. I plan to mount mine on the wall near my router, so at least the two components should not cause mutual heat build-up.

* * *

P.P.S. -- By the way, 'cybertron', I note that you are running open SuSE and Debian. I have always had a great deal of respect for Debian as a distribution and for its philosophy.

I am seriously considering installing Debian on my "Linux system" after I get Novell/SuSE 10.1 installed and stablized. (Again, I am always looking for interesting Linux projects....)

I have always found SuSE Linux extremely easy to install and it has been my primary distribution.

I realize that Debian will present an entirely different installation, configuration, and user experience, but I am hoping that I will learn a great deal and it will be an honor to be part of a GNU project that "provides more than a pure OS...."

Finally, I am excited to read the announcement of the release of Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 in December (alias, "etch"), but I will enjoy trying to learn 3.1 until the release of "etch."

I recently got a set of Debian 3.1 training CDs from PCTech101.com, and I am eager to view them. I have also ordered two books on Debian from Amazon.com, including The Debian System: Concepts and Techniques. (If you have read the book, I would appreciate your opinion of the it; thanks!)

[cybertron]

I never thought that I would use all of the ports on my four-port router, but the more I get into Linux, the more tempting it is to hang onto hardware, and the more interesting Linux projects I want to attempt.

I know what you mean, although having just gotten my electric bill I find my temptation to use anything plugged in has been reduced.

A couple of the twenty-six reviews mentioned that the metal case gets hot, but the other reviews did not mention anything about heat. I plan to mount mine on the wall near my router, so at least the two components should not cause mutual heat build-up.

I wouldn't worry too much about it unless it seems to be malfunctioning. When you cram that much electronics into that small a space it tends to generate heat. My USB hub gets downright hot but it still works.

I realize that Debian will present an entirely different installation, configuration, and user experience, but I am hoping that I will learn a great deal and it will be an honor to be part of a GNU project that "provides more than a pure OS...."

The installation of Debian is not difficult at all, but there is a fair amount of configuration you need to do afterwards. As I recall, there is plenty of documentation if you Google for it though.

I recently got a set of Debian 3.1 training CDs from PCTech101.com, and I am eager to view them. I have also ordered two books on Debian from Amazon.com, including The Debian System: Concepts and Techniques. (If you have read the book, I would appreciate your opinion of the it; thanks!)

Sorry haven't read it. Actually I don't have any books on Linux. Pretty much everything I've learned has been online.

[DavidMD]

Hello, 'cybertron'.

Thank you for your message.

I know what you mean, although having just gotten my electric bill I find my temptation to use anything plugged in has been reduced.

I know what you mean about the use of electricity, 'cybertron'.

At one point, somewhere, I read the average number of amps that a standard tower PC consumes when it is off, power drawn so that the computer boots more quickly. (Television sets really waste electricity for fast "power on.") Of course, turning off one's surge protector when a computer is not in use would solve this problem.

I have a UPS that I am about to install, so it will be drawing a little current all of the time, because it will be on all of the time.

What I would really like to do, 'cybertron', is to "move up" to using LCD monitors only. My two main monitors are 21-inch Trinitron-based CRTs. I have spinal stenosis, so I cannot even lift one by myself, and they produce an amazing amount of heat, not to mention the electricity that they consume -- and they occupy too much desk space. I have no idea, however, when I'll be able to afford to stop using CRTs; I am just thankful to have the equipment that I do own.

The installation of Debian is not difficult at all, but there is a fair amount of configuration you need to do afterwards. As I recall, there is plenty of documentation if you Google for it though.

In some of the inumerable threads started by people new to Linux asking which distribution they should start using, I have seen many experienced users regularly steer people away from Debian as a first distro. Perhaps they do so because they are concerned that the post-install configuration might be too overwhelming for a Linux neophyte.

I am not really sure why. Obviously, there are on-line and printed resources for a user new to Linux or to any given distribution. I do, however, always respect the advice of more experience Linux users. (After all, I am asking for their advice!)

Thanks for the tip about the post-installation configuration and Debian, 'cybertron'. I will still have as much documentation about my hardware written down before attempting an install. (I have no manuals for my monitors, unfortunately, because they are refurbished.)

Right now, I need to focus first on installing Novell/SuSE 10.1 and setting up the NetVista as a MySQL server. (It looks like my free copy of SuSE Linux Enterprise 9 is not going to materialize, so I need to decide on another distro for the NetVista; perhaps a more "light-weight" distro would be better on the NetVista anyway, given its hardware specifications.) I have not researched distros for their usefulness specifically as servers.

...Actually I don't have any books on Linux. Pretty much everything I've learned has been online.

I use "Google/Linux" most of the time, but I have a large personal library and quite a few books on Linux and related topics such as Perl, MySQL, PHP, the bash shell, vi, and even ANSI C (which I've not touched in over a decade). I've also got some philosophical and narrative books about open-source software, the FSF, and the development of GNU/Linux. (I did eventually get rid of my Commodore-64 programming books, although I have the C-64 and monitor stored somewhere.)

I happen to love books and I refer to my Linux reference books often, especially if I am considering posting a question to, say, JustLinux. I also enjoy getting the Linux Journal each month.

Your method of using mostly on-line resources to learn about Linux, 'cybertron', assures that you are getting the most current information. I speak from experience: Computer books are expensive and most go out of date quickly! Ever since I was a child, however, I have loved books.

Finally, 'cybertron', thanks for the advice about heat buildup in the Netgear switch that I am getting. My router/firewall gets warm, but it's been on for five years. (It has a plastic case.)

As long as the Netgear switch in the metal case does not produce the odors of burning electronics and is not too hot to touch, I will not worry -- especially if it is working properly.

Thanks, again, 'cybertron'!

Cordially,

David

[DavidMD]

Hello, 'cybertron' and everyone.

Yeah, I ran Suse 9.3 on a couple of older NetVista's about 6 months ago or so. The only major problem I had with them hardware-wise was that one had crappy Intel graphics and it refused to go above 640x480 until I manually set my monitor refresh rates....

So Linux should run just fine, and if you have problems with it, who cares? It was free.

I promise that I am not trying to make this thread go on ad infinitum, although I realize that it has gone on ad nauseam.

As I mentioned in the description of this particular IBM NetVista computer, it has 512 MB of physical RAM. I was supposed to be getting a free copy of SuSE Linux 9 Enterprise, but I do not think I will be getting that copy now. (I think that the person forgot, and his business has been very generous with me with gratis software and distros.)

Is SuSE Linux 9 Enterprise too demanding for this computer, with only 512 MB of RAM? I can still get SuSE 9 for $14.99, but I realize that (a) I do not need an enterprise-level distro and (b) I can set up MySQL with another distribution that may not have the hardware requirements of SuSE Enterprise. (I could also install a "bare bones" version of SuSE Enterprise.)

(Note: If I can get an educational loan, I may be going for Oracle certification, so I will very likely be setting up Oracle 10g on the NetVista.)

I would appreciate your opinion. Should I use another distribution; go ahead and buy SuSE Linux 9 Enterprise; and/or, should I increase the RAM to 1 GB?

This machine is running as a specialized server (and project); I realize it's not an ideal piece of hardware; and -- if it endures -- I will probably end up doing something entirely different with it in the future that may not demand much of the hardware. (I am using it because it was free and I want to set up a client-server environment.)

Anyway, I have run SuSE Linux for four years, but I am open to trying a different distribution on the NetVista, particularly if it has good hardware detection. (SuSE has excellent hardware recognition and compatibility.)

Thank you very much, in advance!

Cordially,

David

[DavidMD]

Hello, again, everyone.

Would CentOS 4.3 Server have a smaller "footprint" and demand less of system hardware on my IBM NetVista, with 512 MB of RAM, as opposed to my main "Linux computer," which has 1 GB of RAM and a slightly faster Pentium-4 processor?

As I state earlier in this thread, I want to set up a client-server relationship, just for the experience, and to keep MySQL and, possibly, Oracle 10g on another computer (besides my production machine).

The latest news release, on DistroWatch.com, is as follows:

Karanbir Singh has announced the release of CentOS 4.3
Server CD, the project's single-CD variant designed for
server use: "The single CD server install for CentOS 4.3/i386
has now been released and is available from all active mirrors.
Notes: this installer will only work with i686 based CPUs;
the included packages are a subset of all packages available
in the CentOS distribution, however yum has been pre-configured
to use the entire repository; in order to ensure that drivers
and other third party apps maintain compatibility, the package
set used on the Server CD is from CentOS 4.3, you are strongly
encouraged to run a 'yum update' immediately after installation."
Read the rest of the release announcement for further information.
Download: CentOS-4.3.ServerCD-i386.iso (563MB, MD5).

In addition, I understand from DistroWatch.com that "CentOS is 100% compatible rebuild of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux, in full compliance with Red Hat's redistribution requirements. CentOS is for people who need an enterprise class operating system stability without the cost of certification and support."

I will do some more research -- including on the CentOS Web site -- but I would appreciate hearing from others, especially if you are using this distribution as a server. (The local TechSkills office is running CentOS for its Oracle 10g server, but I have no idea how the server's hardware is configured -- e.g., the amount of RAM.) If, however, CentOS is an "enterprise class" OS, then it might use the same amount of system resources as SuSE Linux 9 Enterprise Server.

(Please note that I will be using the NetVista for this specialized server purpose only, and I won't mind if there is a bit of latency. I do not, however, want to set up a sluggish system on the NetVista, even though it may be restricted by the amount of RAM that it has -- and, if more RAM is the suggestion that I get, then I must consider it, despite financial considerations.)

Thank you very much for your time and help!

Cordially,

David

[cybertron]

I doubt you'll have serious problems with 512 as long as you don't do anything too heavy on this system. Since it sounds like it's just going to be for your own learning/testing purposes I'd say you'll be fine with pretty much any distro (although admittedly I haven't run either SLES or CentOS, but they can't be much heavier than any other distro).

[DavidMD]

Hello, 'cybertron'.

I doubt you'll have serious problems with 512 as long as you don't do anything too heavy on this system. Since it sounds like it's just going to be for your own learning/testing purposes I'd say you'll be fine with pretty much any distro (although admittedly I haven't run either SLES or CentOS, but they can't be much heavier than any other distro).

Thank you very much for your time, message, and advice.

I am probably going to get an educational loan to take the CompTIA Oracle-certification courses, which start out with the Linux+ course. (While obviously not a comprehensive Linux course, at least it is a Linux course and should be interesting.)

Would installing and running Oracle 10g (and possibly 9i, for the Oracle tuning and security courses) be considered doing "anything too heavy on this system" (to use your phrase)?

Installing Oracle on a non-enterprise version of Linux is not for the faint of heart. In fact, based on my research, such an installation attempt probably will fail. I cannot afford, nor do I want, Red Hat's Enterprise Server.

I will either use SuSE Linux Enterprise 9 (Drawback: No updates or support), a copy of which is in the mail to me, or -- more likely -- CentOS 4.3 (the full version with a GUI, and not the single-CD server version without X. I actually have instructions for installing Oracle 10g R2 on CentOS 4.3 (or 4.2) from an Oracle expert's Web site. (Oracle, of course, has not certified CentOS.)

I had started to print out his instructions for installing Oracle on White Box Linux, but he actually shut down his Web site as I was preparing to print those instructions! (As you know, CentOS and White Box Linux are "clones" of Red Hat's Enterprise Server, based on the source code that Red Hat must release under the GPL.)

This Oracle expert apparently got very frustrated with inquiries about some broken links (articles that I found at different URLs smply by using his site's "Search" option) and he decided that Joomla is a "terrible" CMS and warned that he has no idea when he will decide on another open source content management system or when he will reorganize his content or bring up his site again. (I mean no criticism: The Web site is his, and he is offering free, expert advice.)

This digression is irrelevant to this discussion, but it is the first time I've had a Web site "pulled out from under me" while I was using it.

Anyway, 'cybertron', does my plan to install Oracle alter your advice about increasing my physical RAM from 512 MB to 1 GB? I've never run Oracle on a machine with less than 1 GB of RAM, but that fact does not mean that one cannot do so.

Thank you, again, 'cybertron', for your time, patience, and advice!

Cordially,

David

P.S. -- This little NetVista is not my idea of great server hardware, but -- as you point out -- I am using it for educational purposes (and it was free). It certainly will not be a production database server.

[cybertron]

I can't say that I've ever used Oracle, but I would still think that it will run fine in 512 MB of RAM. They probably have a minimum requirements list somewhere that will tell you for sure though. All I meant by the heavy usage part was that as long as it's just you using this server it should be fine. I think where you might get into trouble is if there were multiple people (possibly many of them) using it at the same time. Almost all software these days will at least run in 512.

[DavidMD]

Hello, 'cybertron'.

I can't say that I've ever used Oracle, but I would still think that it will run fine in 512 MB of RAM. They probably have a minimum requirements list somewhere that will tell you for sure though. All I meant by the heavy usage part was that as long as it's just you using this server it should be fine. I think where you might get into trouble is if there were multiple people (possibly many of them) using it at the same time. Almost all software these days will at least run in 512.

Thank you for your prompt reply, patience, and advice.

The last time that I set up Oracle was when I was a senior technical writer for a software company and my manager wanted me to take a 500-MHz Pentium-III tower (and I cannot recall if it had 512 MB or 1 GB of RAM) as a departmental database server. The machine was running Windows NT 4 and I had both SQL Server 7 and Oracle 8i set up on it. All four of us in Documentation were connecting to that machine to get decent screen captures. (QA's servers had garbage data, but I set up batch files and SQL scripts to export the data we created into flat files and then reimport it after each build of the software.)

That machine, ignoring the fact that it was not running Linux, was certainly not as powerful as this little IBM NetVista! I also don't plan to test Oracle 10g's ability to create multiple-terabyte database instances.

Once my CentOS 4.3 discs arrive, I will have to decide how big to make the swap file, a topic that always causes some controversy. I will search "Google for Linux" and JustLinux, to try to avoid posting a question on a topic about which people seem to have strong feelings.

Thank you, again, 'cybertron'!

Cordially,

David

P.S. -- I'd rather devote my time to the open-source MySQL database and learning PHP, but I never see any local job listings for MySQL-related positions, which is a shame.

P.P.S. -- Incidentally, 'cybertron', are you testing Debian "etch"? I see the mention of "Debian testing" in your signature. Thanks!

[DavidMD]

Hello, yet, again, 'cybertron'.

Update: I broke down and bought a new router/switch yesterday. I am getting sick and tired of resetting the Macsense XRouter Pro multiple times a day.

I have no money right now, so my options were extremely limited.

I ended up getting a D-Link EBR-2310, which is replacing another D-Link model. (The first thing I will do is to check for firmware updates.)

I got the new router at CompUSA (where I rarely go); with rebates, my final cost will be $20.00. (The discontinued model, which the EBR-2310 replaced, is still being sold widely for about $50.00 retail. It seems wrong to sell a discontinued model at full price.)

My sister's household has the now-replaced D-Link router/switch, and within the last two weeks, they've had to start resetting it sporadically. (I need to configure it for them, but doing so is pointless if they keep resetting it.)

One odd thing about their router, which makes me wonder if it's defective, is that they have two Windows XP machines hooked up to it. Sometimes one PC will be connected to the Internet, while the other has no connection.

(Of course, each computer uses a different brand of NIC, so system hardware could be a factor -- or the router/switch could just be defective.)

I have noticed a similar problem with my larger home network. Linux or Mac OS X will be connected to the Internet through the router, but the Windows XP boxes cannot connect. I cannot recall every having to reset the router when I was running Linux! Maybe there is a bug in the way WinXP handles router/switch connections.

"You get what you pay for," is the old saying, and I may regret getting this D-Link router/switch. (My Macsense XRouter Pro, which I've had for seven years was about $250, and it has served me well, until recently.)

I reviewed every Linksys router/switch that I could find and there were many complaints, although some people were very happy. My first router/switch was a Linksys, long before Cisco acquired Linksys, and it worked for about two weeks before it completely died. (I even checked the pricing on Cisco router/switches yesterday, but the least expensive one was over $250, I recall, at Newegg.com.)

I plan to install the D-Link router/switch this weekend sometime. I have spent most of my time lately, and will until 9 August, helping my uncle, who has terminal cancer. I've had no time to do anything with the network or Linux, although I did order CentOS CDs early this week.

I still plan to use the NetVista as a MySQL and Oracle server (if I decide to get the educational loan for TechSkills CompTIA training for Oracle certification); otherwise, I will install MySQL 5 only.

My major task with Oracle right now is to download the Linux version of Oracle 10g; for some reason, when I try to do so, it's as if I am back to using an analog modem!

Thanks for everything, 'cybertron'!

Cordially,

David

P.S. -- My Netgear switch arrived this week, so I need to connect it to the new router/switch, and hope that all of the computers can connect to the Internet.

I hope that things will go smoothly, because I feel that I have gotten more than my fair share of help from JustLinux recently -- making me very reluctant to post another problem!

[penguin_powered]

Can't help you on the hardware, but I strongly recommend you avoid 10.1 and stick with SUSE Linux 10.0 on your client. 10.1 has some serious issues that Novell is working hard on to resolve before they release the next version. If you can afford it, you might want to consider SLED 10 (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desketp 10).

I run SUSE Linux 10.0 (Community version) at home and it's good. For a small business, it's certainly good enough. But if you want the Cadillac version, SLED 10 is it.

I run SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 at a client site and it rocks!!
I'm very impressed with the Enterprise server. The hardware support is excellent. I tried to use SLES 9 but it couldn't deal with the newer hardware, so I went to SLES 10 and it identified everything, even the Sun flat panel monitor.

John

[cybertron]

The only suggestion I can give you off hand with regards to the Windows machines not able to connect is to run "ipconfig /release" and then "ipconfig /renew" in what passes for a console in Windows (just run "cmd" if you can't find it in the Start menu). That will force them to go looking for addresses again from the router. If that doesn't work and the Linux and Macs still do...beats me.

[DavidMD]

Greetings, John.

Can't help you on the hardware, but I strongly recommend you avoid 10.1 and stick with SUSE Linux 10.0 on your client. 10.1 has some serious issues that Novell is working hard on to resolve before they release the next version. If you can afford it, you might want to consider SLED 10 (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desketp 10).

I run SUSE Linux 10.0 (Community version) at home and it's good. For a small business, it's certainly good enough. But if you want the Cadillac version, SLED 10 is it.

I run SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 at a client site and it rocks!!
I'm very impressed with the Enterprise server. The hardware support is excellent. I tried to use SLES 9 but it couldn't deal with the newer hardware, so I went to SLES 10 and it identified everything, even the Sun flat panel monitor.

John

Thank you for your message.

You state that SuSE Linux "10.1 has some serious issues that Novell is working hard on to resolve before they release the next version." Would you mind telling me what a few of these specific issues are, or providing a URL that will allow me to read about them? (I will check the Novell/SuSE Web site.)

I have read nothing but positive reviews of SuSE Linux 10.1, so your helpful recommendation to use 10.0, which I am sure is valid, comes as a shocking and unpleasant surprise to me.

In addition, this week I received from PCTech101.com a Special Edition of SuSE Linux 10.1.

The SUSE Linux Special Edition 10.1 DVD "is available for either 32- or 64-bit systems. The difference between the Special Edition and the Retail and OSS versions is that, in addition to all of the other features that come with the Retail and OSS versions, the Special Edition comes with Intel Wireless LAN support, DVD and DIVX Playback, MP3 Creation Capability, 3D Drivers for NVIDIA and ATI Cards, [and] ISDN and DSL support for Fritz! cards. The only two things that [are] missing [are] Real Player and Flash which you can install on your own."

I even purchased the retail version of SuSE Linux 10.1, so that I could get the benefit of installation report. I have used SuSE Linux since 2002, long before Novell acquired SuSE, and -- although some incremental versions have been better than others -- I have never run into a problem that I could not hack my way around.

I have a copy of SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9, but I got a special price on it (with no support). I cannot afford Version 10.

I am not personally familiar, John, with SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop; how does SLED 10 differ from SuSE 10? How expensive is it and is SLES 10 required to run it? (I will, of course, check the Novell/SuSE Web site.)

I need an enterprise Linux server on which to run Oracle, although I also plan to install MySQL on the NetVista, making it a database server. I have basically decided to give CentOS 4.3 a try, because it is essentially a "clone" of Red Hat's enterprise server. I have a live CentOS 4.3 CD, so I can use it to check hardware compatibility with the NetVista (which is refurbished, and far from new). I have no experience with CentOS, but it looks like a viable server option.

Thank you, again, John, for your message!

Cordially,

David