Date: Wed, 21 Jun 00 21:04:18 EST From: Dwight McKay (The Moderator) Reply-To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #18 To: Suns-at-Home-List Suns-at-Home Digest Wed, 21 Jun 00 Volume 13 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: Getting Old Suns Working PC RAM for the SparcLX (2 msgs) PPPoE and Solaris Revisions regarding Ultra machines... Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #17 (5 msgs) thanks for 411 case help Workman & Plextor +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Submissions: suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com | | Requests: suns-at-home-request@net-kitchen.com | | WWW Archive access: http://www.net-kitchen.com/~sah | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 23:48:14 -1000 From: Kirill Levchenko Subject: Getting Old Suns Working To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com Hello, I am trying to bring back to life two SS1s and two diskless 3/60s that I saved from the junk heap. I am new to Sun equipment, so I apologize if my questions are naive or obvious. Both of the SPARCs need a new NVRAM chip since one is missing and the other is dead (invalid ID PROM indicated at startup). I haven't looked at the 3/60s yet, they might need new ones also. So my first question: Where is a good place to buy NVRAM chips? Most places I checked list the price around $15, which would mean paying more for the NVRAM chips than I paid for the machines themselves. Any way to get them cheaper? I found SunOS 4.1.1 for the sun3 architecture, so I assume I'll be able to use that for the 3/60s when the time comes. Where can I get a version (say, 4.1.1) of SunOS for the SPARCStations (sun4c architecture)? Sun only seems to be selling latest versions and at high prices. Also, how exactly can I install unto the SPARCStations? They only have floppy drives and I suspect SunOS does not come on floppies. I also don't have any manuals. Is this another problem I'm ignoring, or can I get along without them? Thank you in advance. -- Kirill Levchenko - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:13:16 -0700 From: John Arsenault Subject: PC RAM for the SparcLX To: "'Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com'" On Monday May 29, 2000 Sheldon Hall wrote: "All three will take 128 MB of RAM, although the Sun spec is 96 MB. They take real-parity PC RAM, too, which is cheaper than the special RAM for the SS5-and-up." Do you have any suggestions for the brand, size and speed of PC real parity RAM? I stripped one of my LX's to put 96MB in the other. Thanks, John - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:54:04 -0400 From: "Sheldon T. Hall" Subject: PC RAM for the SparcLX To: "'John Arsenault'" On Saturday, June 10, 2000 12:13 PM, John Arsenault wrote: > On Monday May 29, 2000 Sheldon Hall wrote: > "All three will take 128 MB of RAM, although the Sun spec is 96 MB. They > take real-parity PC RAM, too, which is cheaper than the special RAM for the > SS5-and-up." > Do you have any suggestions for the brand, size and speed of PC real parity > RAM? I stripped one of my LX's to put 96MB in the other. John- I just used commodity PC RAM, no special brand. The LX wants 60 ns, FPM, 72-pin, true-parity SIMMs. In theory, it will take 6 x 16 meg sticks, for a total of 96 megs. In practice, you can put 32-meg sticks in the first slot in each bank, put 16-meggers in the other four slots, and get 128 megs. 72-pin PC RAM seems to come in a variety of configurations: EDO or FPM non-parity ("?x32"), logic parity, or true parity("?x36") 80, 70, or 60 ns, and sometimes faster I think the majority of Pentium boxes that took 72-pin SIMMs used 60ns, non-parity, EDO, but the other stuff is around. My wife's Dell P-100, for example, requires 60ns, real-parity, FPM RAM, and it's stuffed with SIMMs I salvaged out of a pile of DEC '486s from the local University surplus store. The same stuff would suit the LX. In fact, the two 32-meg sticks in the LX were in the Dell for a week or two. The memory in my LX came from a private seller and from some outfit called "Memory Monster." AFAIK, It's nothing special, just plain-old PC stuff that fits the LX's spec. -Shel - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:04:11 -0600 (MDT) From: "Peter T. Hraber" Subject: PPPoE and Solaris To: suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com Howdy All, In the quest for greater bandwidth at home, I am pursuing an ISP who can deliver DSL. In Northern New Mexico, this (currently) leaves few options (Covad). Here are three questions for you gurus: (1) Have you had experience, good or bad, with these folks? My ISP to be (mindspring/earthlink) said I need to run PPPoE software... (2) Have you found any PPPoE client software that will run on Solaris 2.6? (or any Solaris? - all available seems to be for Linux kernel 2.2) The alternative seems to be a hardware gateway/router... (3) Have you had success or failure with the Linksys BEFSR41 and configuring a home network? (Firmware upgrades seem to be a problem, as they require a Windows connection.) Shared DSL trials and tribulations would be appreciated, especially from others in the low-bandwidth backwaters who are trying to modernize. (I have been to dslreports.com but hope to learn more OS-specific details.) Muchas gracias, Peter Hraber (pth@santafe.edu) - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:31:06 -0400 From: David Muccioli Subject: Revisions regarding Ultra machines... To: suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com A word of caution to those considering buying the Ultra-2. This machine has been END-OF LIFEd by sun. {Insert name of our very large Sun reseller here} has told us there are no more to be had (we got the last six). My employer had to backtrack eighteen Ultra-2 order and order newer machines like the E-220r or the E-420r. While we knew that the product was being discontinued this year, it was more sudden than we expected and we are now left with the task of fielding a new server platform which has been largely untested (by us). In addition, I fear that the SBUS components are disappearing. Sun has already discontinued the TGX+ framebuffers (Video card) and is no longer producing the TGX chipset so there won't be any vendors making TGX clones either. I expect that the rest of the SBUS peripherals will die the same painful death in short order. My experience witht the Ultra-5 is that it's slow. We have a few particularly crippled ones at work. They get better as you add *lots* more memory. But, if you're looking for a workstation, I'd suggest the Ultra10 or Ultra30. Ultra-10's can be had for about $5000 and yield resonable performance. The newer ones have a 440Mhz processor. DM I was going to get the Ultra 5 on student special, but was advised = that if I could swing it, the Ultra 2 would yield *much* better performance in = almost all cases, and with a 360 Mhz CPU w/256K L2 cache was not half the machine the = Ultra 2 is (literally). -- @-----------------------------------------------------------------@ | David Muccioli 410-309-8650 dmucciol@bbn.com | | Unix Systems Admin 800-378-2035 | @---------------------------@ GENUiTY @-------------------------@ "The result of any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- Arthur C. Clarke - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 22:07:48 -0700 From: Jonathan Sergent Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #17 To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com > Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 19:37:40 -0400 > From: Pat and Jake Brodersen > Subject: 411 case > To: Sun at Home > > This is probably a silly question, but how do you get a 411 case open. > I have two that I can't open. It looks like the top cover is supposed > to slide backwards to expose the insides, but I can't get it to move. > I've already snapped off two of the small alignment (?) pins near the > bottom. Fragile little suckers.... > > Help please... > > Jake These are lots of fun. You need to press something into one of the holes on the side (on both sides) and the cover will lift off from the back. The holes are arranged like so: ________________________ top | O O O ... | O * ... | O O O ... | rear You want the second one back in the second row (noted with a * above). Do this on both sides of the case. Once you get it open, it will all make sense. It's just not clear how it works until you actually have seen the insides. Do make sure to get the clips in front lined up when you close it, or it will get wedged... --jss. [Thanks to all who responded to this request. I dropped several replys that] [duplicated the information in the ones here. --ddm ] - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 02:15:35 EDT From: PLGEARHART@aol.com Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #17 To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com >Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 19:37:40 -0400 >From: Pat and Jake Brodersen >Subject: 411 case >To: Sun at Home >This is probably a silly question, but how do you get a 411 case open. >I have two that I can't open. It looks like the top cover is supposed >to slide backwards to expose the insides, but I can't get it to move. >I've already snapped off two of the small alignment (?) pins near the >bottom. Fragile little suckers.... >From the back of the case look at the ventilation holes on each side of the case for holes partially covered with plastic tabs (on my 411 case it was the second row of holes form the top, second hole from the back of the case). Using a heavy gauge wire or a small precision screwdriver, press gently in on the tabs while tugging up on the corner of the case. With both corners released, swing the top forward to remove. Pat - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:13:33 +0100 From: Bob Hoekstra Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #17 To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com Derrik wrote: > I am wandering if I can yank the 8 gig IDE disk from a Ultra 5 and a 20 Gig > PC disk in? Will I be able to install Solaris 8 on it? Will the Ultra 5 > firmware recognize it ok? > > Thanks. > > -Derrik Yes, you can use a 20GB disk - I use a Maxtor 92041U4 as well as the original Seagate ST39140A in my U5, running dual boot Solaris 7 & 8 (I have my reasons :-). Points to note: 1. Make sure that you get an ATA66 disk to replace the 9GB default. The speed difference is considerable. A little more pricey, but worth it. 2. Sun don't provide the IDE cable you need to run 2 disks of 1 IDE channel. You need the double width variety for ATA66. 3. There is not much space for a second disk (I doubt you could fit a third in there). I mounted the 20GB behind the funny little flap on the front cover. 4. In my case, the 9GB disk runs a lot hotter (strange but true: the Maxtor stays cool to the touch) so the 9GB stays by the power suply fan, where ventilation is better. YMMV. 5. Try as I might, I couldn't get the 20GB disk to run as the master with 2 disks in the box. I spent almost a day rebooting the damn machine. Still it seems to be fine with the 9GB as master and the 20GB as slave. There is no problem with only the 20GB disk installed (use cable select mode). Good luck. Also, "Ken Hansen" wrote: > I noticed in the last digest there were several posts regarding relative = > perofrmance > of several machines (the SPARC line in toto?), but the Ultra info looked = > a bit wrong > (IMHO)... > > The Ultra 2 can take up to 2 400 Megahertz UltraSPARC CPUs, and as such it > could be argued as more *robust* than an Ultra 5 or Ultra 10... I say this because > I just ordered an Ultra 2 w/ 2x300 Mhz CPUS w/2 meg L2 cache, 256 Meg RAM > and 21" monitor w/ Creator graphics (UPA attached) and a 4 Gig HD - $3000. > > I was going to get the Ultra 5 on student special, but was advised that if I could > swing it, the Ultra 2 would yield *much* better performance in almost all cases, > and with a 360 Mhz CPU w/256K L2 cache was not half the machine the Ultra 2 > is (literally). Also, the speculation is that the Ultra 2, being SBUS and more expandable > would hold it's value much longer. The Ultra 5 special is $1295 for a 360 Mhz > CPU w/256K cache, 128 Meg RAM, 18 Gig IDE HD and PCI graphics (32 bit) > with 17" monitor. To up the RAM, cut over to SCSI and upgrade to a 21" display > would take the price of the Ultra 5 *close* to the Ultra 2, and the performance would > be lower, much lower (cache diff., 1 vs. 2 CPU, basic design)... > > Sorry, I just felt the need to share the above, I would appreciate corrections if I am > wrong on facts, opinions will vary... You are more or less correct. The U2 is a great machine. There are some points to remember: - The 333MHz U5 will perform better than the 360 MHz version in most tests because it comes with 2MB cache. That's also why it is a little more expensive. - The big difference that makes the U2 superior (IMHO) is that you can stick in a second processor. There are lots of arguments about the use of multiple processors vs a single higher speed processor. In some case you might be better off with a single chip, but in others the more processors the better. In this respect, even an old SS20 is still a good machine: put 4 200 MHz Hyper Sparcs in there and it flies. Oity about the price (or I'd have some in my SS10 :-). - For me an important difference is build quality. The U5 is little more than a PC on steroids (and I own one) while the U2 and other models, are built to last. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GO/! d- s++:+ a+ C++(++++) US+++$ P+ L+ E--- W++ N++ w--- O- V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP- t+ 5++ X+ R* tv+ b+ DI++ D G e(*) h++/-- r+++ y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ----------------------------------------------------- Bob Hoekstra: APL & Unix Consultant Tele: +44 (0)1483 771028 http://www.khamsin.demon.co.uk Home email: Bob.Hoekstra@khamsin.demon.co.uk ----------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:53:35 -0400 From: John DiMarco Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #17 To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com In message <200006042354.SAA09027@tigger.net-kitchen.com> "Ken Hansen" quoted: > > The Ultra 2 can take up to 2 400 Megahertz UltraSPARC CPUs, and as >such it > could be argued as more *robust* than an Ultra 5 or Ultra 10... Robust? Robustness is a measure of how likely the machine is to "take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. While the U2 is more robust than the U5 or U10 since it's designed with higher-quality components (it is a much higher-end machine), the fact that it takes two CPUs doesn't make it more robust (except, I suppose, in that if one CPU fails you can throw it away and the machine will still work with the remaining CPU). > I was going to get the Ultra 5 on student special, but was advised = >that if I could > swing it, the Ultra 2 would yield *much* better performance in = >almost all cases, Not so. Yes, the 300MHz UltraSPARC-II with 2MB L2 cache in your U2 can outperform a 360MHz UltraSPARC-IIi with 256k L2 cache in the U5 for some working sets, but there are quite a few workloads with working sets that fit well in 256k L2 cache, and those will benefit more from the 20% clock speed advantage offered by the U5's processor than from the larger L2 cache in the U2. >Also, the speculation is that the Ultra 2, being = >SBUS and more expandable > would hold it's value much longer. Sun has been migrating from SBUS to PCI for a while; someday soon, Sun will no longer produce SBUS systems or peripherals. The U2 is SBUS, the U5 is PCI. I expect the U5 to have greater longevity than the U2. Regards, John -- John DiMarco Office: SF2101 CSLab Systems Manager Phone: 416-978-5300 University of Toronto Fax: 416-978-1931 http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~jdd - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 20:31:35 EEST From: "v b" Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #17 To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com >From: Dwight McKay (The Moderator) >Reply-To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com >To: Suns-at-Home-List@tigger.net-kitchen.com >Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #17 >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 00 18:52:48 EST >Suns-at-Home Digest Sun, 4 Jun 00 Volume 13 : Issue 17 >Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:06:06 -0500 >From: "Derrik Walker v2.0" >Subject: A PC Hard disk an Ultra 5? >To: > >I am wandering if I can yank the 8 gig IDE disk from a Ultra 5 and a 20 Gig >PC disk in? Will I be able to install Solaris 8 on it? Will the Ultra 5 >firmware recognize it ok? Absolutely. Ultra5 machines have a native IDE built in. Any IDE drive (preferrably Ultra ATA-III) will work. Exception would be 5.25" (full height) PC drives from 10-15 years ago. Those only worked on PC-cans and nothing else because of timing. Slap a brand new 36GB IDE into your Ultra and you'll be good to go. ***** >Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:30:15 -0400 >From: "Fisch, Eric" >Subject: FW: asppp inactivity timer >To: suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com > >The packets look like the are being sent to 224.0.0.1 (multicast?!). Any >idea why an ISP would do that? Your ISP isn't doing that, TCP/IP is. 224.0.0.1 is a multicast address. In plain English, your box is routing packets right now. Here, do this: touch /etc/notrouter touch /etc/reconfigure (just in case, can't hurt) and disable multicasting in /etc/init.d/inetsvc, and finally, /usr/sbin/shutdown -y -g0 -i6 And you should be good to go. >sunthar resar wrote: > > Please help me to figureout how to disconnect > > the users who are idle for more than one hour > > automatically. > >There's a program called idled which does this, written by Michael >P. Crider. Its home page doesn't seem to exist any more but you can >download the source from Debian or SuSE Linux (probably a number of >other places, too) and compile it yourself. Try, for example: > > ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/non-free/ > source/admin/idled_1.16.orig.tar.gz Ah, but why complicate? Download tcsh from sunfreeware.com, and configure /etc/csh.cshrc to contain the following line: set auto-logout=60 (logs you out after 60 seconds) Now set all your users to have tcsh as their default shell in /etc/passwd, and you'll be on your merry way. Naturally after that, `man tcsh` is in order. >Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:51:53 -0400 >From: "Ken Hansen" >Subject: Revisions regarding Ultra machines... >To: > >I noticed in the last digest there were several posts regarding relative = >perofrmance >of several machines (the SPARC line in toto?), but the Ultra info looked = >a bit wrong >(IMHO)... > > The Ultra 2 can take up to 2 400 Megahertz UltraSPARC CPUs, and as = >such it > could be argued as more *robust* than an Ultra 5 or Ultra 10... I = >say this because > I just ordered an Ultra 2 w/ 2x300 Mhz CPUS w/2 meg L2 cache, 256 = >Meg RAM > and 21" monitor w/ Creator graphics (UPA attached) and a 4 Gig HD - = >$3000. > > I was going to get the Ultra 5 on student special, but was advised = >that if I could > swing it, the Ultra 2 would yield *much* better performance in = >almost all cases, > and with a 360 Mhz CPU w/256K L2 cache was not half the machine the = >Ultra 2 > is (literally). Also, the speculation is that the Ultra 2, being = >SBUS and more expandable > would hold it's value much longer. The Ultra 5 special is $1295 for = >a 360 Mhz > CPU w/256K cache, 128 Meg RAM, 18 Gig IDE HD and PCI graphics (32 = >bit) > with 17" monitor. To up the RAM, cut over to SCSI and upgrade to a = >21" display > would take the price of the Ultra 5 *close* to the Ultra 2, and the = >performance would > be lower, much lower (cache diff., 1 vs. 2 CPU, basic design)... > >Sorry, I just felt the need to share the above, I would appreciate = >corrections if I am >wrong on facts, opinions will vary... > >Thanks, > >Ken >n2vip@bellatlantic.net Yeah, that dude that wrote the 'review' was really bent towards PC-trash-can junk. But anyway, Ultra2 might not have been the most prudent move since as you said, still has SBUS which apparently was touted to you as an advantage. While SBUS is very good, the PCI machines are better because there are more peripherals (by this I mean NEW peripherals) such as Ensoniq PCI cards and PCI 3D accelerators available. In addition an Ultra 5 has an IDE and a SCSI interface, can easily be upgraded to UltraSPARC-II @360MHz (possibly even 440MHz), etc., etc. Now you be the judge. Personally, I would have sprung for the Ultra5 without so much as blinking an eye. I've also learned that PC-junk PCI cards will work on a DEC Alpha machine with a PCI bus and Linux + drivers, from which I also deduce that they should work in a Sun box with the appropriate drivers. They say that Suns with PCI need "Sun PCI" cards, but I don't belive that for a second. After all, PCI is PCI. If Linux can do it, so can Solaris, with appropriate drivers. PCI bus is the same, no matter what architecture it's in. (This fraction was an afterthought.) >Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:57:26 -0400 >From: Erik Fichtner >Subject: Suns-at-Home Digest V13 #16 >To: Dwight McKay >In addition to kicking users off that have been idle too long, it can also >kick off people who have been on the system for too long, or enforce login >policies such as "one login per user". It is configurable to specific >uids, gids, terminal lines, etc. > >Very nice. Wouldn't "one login per user" defeat the whole concept of multitasking and time sharing of UNIX? ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:00:39 -0400 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F6dersen_Jacob_K_Civ_ACC/DRKI_=28Sverdrup=29?= Subject: thanks for 411 case help To: "'suns-at-home@net-kitchen.com'" Many thanks to all of you who responded to my request for help opening a 411 case. I was successful and am now hooking up a new 8Gb tape drive in place of the old 150Mb drive. Looks like I'll have to replace the ribbon cable inside, as it is just an inch or two too short to connect to the Seagate drive (I had to rotate the ribbon cable 180 degrees to match the connector on the back of the drive). It's always something, isn't it. Hope to have my tape back-up ready by the end of the week. Cheers, Jake Jacob K. Brödersen III Principal Engineer, Sverdrup Technology, Inc. HQ ACC/DRKI DSN 574-1911 COMM (757) 764-1911 jacob.brodersen2@langley.af.mil - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:44:46 -0500 From: Garry Garrett Subject: Workman & Plextor To: Suns-at-Home@net-kitchen.com I've got a Plextor 8x caddy mounted cdrom (called "8plex" on the front). It's been a good drive overall, but I've found that it doesn't seem to want to work with workman (I downloaded a binary off of www.freeware4sun.com). Workman does not seem to be able to recognize that I have a disk in side. Has anybody else out there gotten this drive to work? There is a "play" button on the drive, so I can get it to play music CDs, but I'd rather control it with workman (or a similar program - preferably one that can work with a CD database so that it knows what the titles of the tracks are, etc.) if I can. -- Garry Garrett http://monarch.papillion.ne.us/~ggarrett - ------------------------------ End of Suns-at-Home Digest ******************************