September 2004 - WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

WLUG IRC channel
by Charles R. Anderson 13 Sep '04

13 Sep '04

Come one, come all! Bob George has acquired a new IRC channel for us to replace #wlug which had been abandoned but still controlled by Western LUG, http://www.westernlug.org/. Join us at our new IRC home: Connect to: irc.freenode.net /join #wlug-ma Hope to see some of you soon!

2 1

Re: Wlug Digest, Vol 11, Issue 11
by Ryan Caron 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

I have a laptop that I want to do a Gentoo install on. We could use that for showing a stage3 "fast" install and switch to Mike's small form factor for post-install. I also have a small form factor PC I could bring in that has Gentoo on it if necessary. I think discussing what makes Gentoo unique, its pros and cons, will be great. If we're going to discuss why distro is better (or worse) than other than I say Debian. I say this because the "pretty" distros (SuSe, Mandrake, Fedora) are too different for a fair comparison. I also say this because I switched to Gentoo after trying a little bit of Debian. Sincerely, Ryan Caron > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mike Leo <mleo963(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Wlug] Upcoming meeting... > To: andystewart(a)comcast.net, Worcester Linux Users Group > <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> > Message-ID: <20040910143138.35900.qmail(a)web51309.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I have a recently installed Gentoo on a small form > factor PC i can volunteer...its much easier to carry > around than a big machine is. > > I suspect the meeting would be a begining the Gentoo > install and since there isnt enough time to wait, we > can cut over to an installed system. > > I don't mind sharing what I know, but I know nothing > more then what it looks like at the end. > > Let me know and I can plan to bring this machine in. > > thanks > Mike > > > > --- Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Hi everybody, > > > > Wow...time flies...its nearly meeting time again. > > > > Based on what I saw on the mailing list recently, > > I'm wondering if we should > > have a "Gentoo" meeting. Who would like to > > volunteer to do this (it could be > > more than one)? Here is a possible outline: > > > > - what is Gentoo? > > - why Gentoo vs. <pick_another_distro>? > > - demo an install (albeit a "shortcut" with > > everything precompiled) > > - pros / cons > > - cool features! > > > > Perhaps one person could give the group an overview, > > while a couple of other > > people demo other aspects of Gentoo. > > > > To those of you already running Gentoo: does this > > make sense? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andy > > - -- > > Andy Stewart, Founder > > Worcester Linux Users' Group > > Worcester, MA USA > > http://www.wlug.org > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) > > > > > iD8DBQFBQRvPHl0iXDssISsRApljAJ4lUVUWMM/mKWLvXcEtHiwkniWZdACfaID5 > > g9XYdO5QsHdWMmAJUuWuWIk= > > =SQOI > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wlug mailing list > > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

2 1

Re: Wlug Digest, Vol 11, Issue 11
by Ryan Caron 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

> Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT) > From: Mike Leo <mleo963(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Wlug] Upcoming meeting... > To: andystewart(a)comcast.net, Worcester Linux Users Group > <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> > Message-ID: <20040910143138.35900.qmail(a)web51309.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I have a recently installed Gentoo on a small form > factor PC i can volunteer...its much easier to carry > around than a big machine is. > > I suspect the meeting would be a begining the Gentoo > install and since there isnt enough time to wait, we > can cut over to an installed system. > > I don't mind sharing what I know, but I know nothing > more then what it looks like at the end. > > Let me know and I can plan to bring this machine in. > > thanks > Mike > > > > --- Andy Stewart <andystewart(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Hi everybody, > > > > Wow...time flies...its nearly meeting time again. > > > > Based on what I saw on the mailing list recently, > > I'm wondering if we should > > have a "Gentoo" meeting. Who would like to > > volunteer to do this (it could be > > more than one)? Here is a possible outline: > > > > - what is Gentoo? > > - why Gentoo vs. <pick_another_distro>? > > - demo an install (albeit a "shortcut" with > > everything precompiled) > > - pros / cons > > - cool features! > > > > Perhaps one person could give the group an overview, > > while a couple of other > > people demo other aspects of Gentoo. > > > > To those of you already running Gentoo: does this > > make sense? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andy > > - -- > > Andy Stewart, Founder > > Worcester Linux Users' Group > > Worcester, MA USA > > http://www.wlug.org > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) > > > > > iD8DBQFBQRvPHl0iXDssISsRApljAJ4lUVUWMM/mKWLvXcEtHiwkniWZdACfaID5 > > g9XYdO5QsHdWMmAJUuWuWIk= > > =SQOI > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wlug mailing list > > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wlug mailing list > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > > End of Wlug Digest, Vol 11, Issue 11 > ************************************ > >

1 0

Upcoming meeting...
by Andy Stewart 10 Sep '04

10 Sep '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi everybody, Wow...time flies...its nearly meeting time again. Based on what I saw on the mailing list recently, I'm wondering if we should have a "Gentoo" meeting. Who would like to volunteer to do this (it could be more than one)? Here is a possible outline: - what is Gentoo? - why Gentoo vs. <pick_another_distro>? - demo an install (albeit a "shortcut" with everything precompiled) - pros / cons - cool features! Perhaps one person could give the group an overview, while a couple of other people demo other aspects of Gentoo. To those of you already running Gentoo: does this make sense? Thanks, Andy - -- Andy Stewart, Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA USA http://www.wlug.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBQRvPHl0iXDssISsRApljAJ4lUVUWMM/mKWLvXcEtHiwkniWZdACfaID5 g9XYdO5QsHdWMmAJUuWuWIk= =SQOI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

NFS Trouble
by Chuck Haines 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

I have an interesting problem that is occuring. I have a /home directory on a file server and I have several login servers that mount this /home directory via NFS. Now this /home directory has a ton of files and directorys (about 2000 user accounts). I noticed that when I perform a copy of a large file ( I tested with a 50 MB file) on a login server from something like /tmp to the NFS mounted /home, the load average on the file server jumps up to over 7, and seems to take forever (around 3-4 minutes). If I copy a large file (once again I tested with 50 MB) from the NFS mounted /home to like /tmp on the login server, there is no noticable load average increase and it occurs in approximately 10-15 seconds. So it seems that writes to the NFS mounted /home are taking longer than they should and are spiking the load average. Both the file server and the login servers are dual P3's with 2 gigs of ram. Has anyone ever seen anything like this, or knows of any solutions to this problem? Thanks, Chuck -- Chuck Haines chaines(a)gmail.com ------------------------------------------- Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity WPI Class of 2005 ------------------------------------------- AIM: CyberGrex YIM: CyberGrex_27 ICQ: 3707881 -------------------------------------------

5 6

RE: [Wlug] NFS Trouble
by Keller, Tim 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

What's the disk like on the nfs server? If it's all software based RAID, writing is going to be really expensive CPU wise vs. reading. Though even with that said, I can't see where a 50 meg file would put a load of 7 on a box. Tim. -----Original Message----- From: Dwight A. Ernest [mailto:dwight@significant.com] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 12:24 PM To: Chuck Haines; Worcester Linux Users Group Subject: Re: [Wlug] NFS Trouble With what options did you mount the volume on the client? Chuck Haines wrote: > I have an interesting problem that is occuring. I have a /home > directory on a file server and I have several login servers that mount > this /home directory via NFS. Now this /home directory has a ton of > files and directorys (about 2000 user accounts). I noticed that when > I perform a copy of a large file ( I tested with a 50 MB file) on a > login server from something like /tmp to the NFS mounted /home, the > load average on the file server jumps up to over 7, and seems to take > forever (around 3-4 minutes). If I copy a large file (once again I > tested with 50 MB) from the NFS mounted /home to like /tmp on the > login server, there is no noticable load average increase and it > occurs in approximately 10-15 seconds. So it seems that writes to the > NFS mounted /home are taking longer than they should and are spiking > the load average. Both the file server and the login servers are dual > P3's with 2 gigs of ram. Has anyone ever seen anything like this, or > knows of any solutions to this problem? > > Thanks, > Chuck > _______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

2 1

Fwd: [Wlug] NFS Trouble
by Chuck Haines 09 Sep '04

09 Sep '04

Meant to sent this to the whole list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chuck Haines <chaines(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:44:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [Wlug] NFS Trouble To: jmoyer(a)redhat.com Server: Kernel = 2.4.21-15.ELsmp nfs-util = 1.0.6-21EL Client: Kernel = 2.4.21-15.ELsmp nfs-util = 1.0.6-21EL Both machines are running RedHat Advance Server 3.0 ( Taroon Update 2). When performing the copy, top on the server loops like this after about 75% of the transfer: 13:43:19 up 26 days, 6:05, 2 users, load average: 7.19, 3.30, 1.62 125 processes: 124 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle total 0.2% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.4% 48.3% 49.3% cpu00 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 66.6% 31.6% cpu01 0.4% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.8% 30.0% 67.0% Mem: 2061576k av, 2044428k used, 17148k free, 0k shrd, 351044k buff 1425940k actv, 270704k in_d, 31124k in_c Swap: 1052248k av, 19780k used, 1032468k free 1371100k cached PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND 24242 bkmcd 15 0 4648 4220 3012 S 0.4 0.2 0:03 1 smbd 165 root 17 0 0 0 0 SW 0.2 0.0 26:10 0 raid5d 4783 root 15 0 0 0 0 DW 0.2 0.0 80:48 0 nfsd 4790 root 15 0 0 0 0 DW 0.2 0.0 80:29 1 nfsd 4788 root 15 0 0 0 0 DW 0.2 0.0 82:35 0 nfsd 4785 root 15 0 0 0 0 DW 0.2 0.0 80:40 0 nfsd 4784 root 15 0 0 0 0 DW 0.2 0.0 81:18 1 nfsd 24515 chaines 15 0 1256 1256 900 R 0.2 0.0 0:00 0 top 1 root 15 0 508 468 448 S 0.0 0.0 0:24 0 init 2 root RT 0 0 0 0 SW 0.0 0.0 0:00 0 migration/0 As you can see, most of the CPU is in an IO wait state. Hope this helps, Chuck On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:54:28 -0400, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer(a)redhat.com> wrote: > ==> Regarding [Wlug] NFS Trouble; Chuck Haines <chaines(a)gmail.com> adds: > > chaines> I have an interesting problem that is occuring. I have a /home > chaines> directory on a file server and I have several login servers that > chaines> mount this /home directory via NFS. Now this /home directory has > chaines> a ton of files and directorys (about 2000 user accounts). I > chaines> noticed that when I perform a copy of a large file ( I tested with > chaines> a 50 MB file) on a login server from something like /tmp to the > chaines> NFS mounted /home, the load average on the file server jumps up to > chaines> over 7, and seems to take forever (around 3-4 minutes). If I copy > chaines> a large file (once again I tested with 50 MB) from the NFS mounted > chaines> /home to like /tmp on the login server, there is no noticable load > chaines> average increase and it occurs in approximately 10-15 seconds. So > chaines> it seems that writes to the NFS mounted /home are taking longer > chaines> than they should and are spiking the load average. Both the file > chaines> server and the login servers are dual P3's with 2 gigs of ram. > chaines> Has anyone ever seen anything like this, or knows of any solutions > chaines> to this problem? > > Kernel version (client and server)? Version of nfs-utils? What does top > show as taking up CPU when you do the copy and your load average spikes? > > -Jeff > -- Chuck Haines chaines(a)gmail.com ------------------------------------------- Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity WPI Class of 2005 ------------------------------------------- AIM: CyberGrex YIM: CyberGrex_27 ICQ: 3707881 ------------------------------------------- -- Chuck Haines chaines(a)gmail.com ------------------------------------------- Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity WPI Class of 2005 ------------------------------------------- AIM: CyberGrex YIM: CyberGrex_27 ICQ: 3707881 -------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [Wlug] printers
by Son Nguyen 06 Sep '04

06 Sep '04

Charles and all, LPRng is not bad at all. For those who still have it available for use and have been working with it for a while, it works great. For beginners, I forsee the use of CUPS ia an easier learning curves. In my situation, I have to upgrade all of my linux boxes every two years. Sinces cups is built in to the distributions that I am using it is best for me to adapt to the change (as long as it does not disrupt functionality and the way my users works). Last I have checked, LPRng is not be updated recently ( I could be wrong). Its just seems to be a bit painful to build LPRng into new distributions that already have working printing solution. >From what I have read so far...some of us are having issues here and there with cups. I guess...luck fo rme...I have not. Sonny >From: Chuck Haines <chaines(a)gmail.com> >Reply-To: Chuck Haines <chaines(a)gmail.com>, Worcester Linux Users Group<wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> >To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> >Subject: Re: [Wlug] printers >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:25:48 -0400 > >LPRng is not that bad for a print server. In the ECE dept at WPI, we >use LPRng beause CUPS IMHO is still rather buggy. We've tried >switching over to CUPS on many occasions however have always ran into >a bug that prevents us from performing the switch over. We've also >used CUPS on our other servers to connet to the printer server running >LPRng and have run into some troubles with that, which we have not >using LPRng. > >Chuck > >On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:21:45 +0000, Son Nguyen <snguyen(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Don, > > > > I would recommend not using LPRng. It is too old. I understand that CUPS > > seems difficult, but once you understand it, it is the next best thing. In > > my office, I have setup my kickstart to install 300+ printers on all of my > > Redhat Linux V3 Workstation machines (100+). You can configure it via > > console, applet, or even web. Fedora and Redhat has gone that route and I > > believe that others have too. It is much better than LPRng can every be. > > > > Sonny > > > > &gt;From: &quot;Don Peterson&quot; &lt;dpeterson(a)sterilite.com&gt; > > &gt;Reply-To: Worcester Linux Users Group &lt;wlug(a)mail.wlug.org&gt; > > &gt;To: &quot;Worcester Linux Users Group&quot; &lt;wlug(a)mail.wlug.org&gt; > > &gt;Subject: RE: [Wlug] printers > > &gt;Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:13:56 -0400 > > &gt; > > &gt;Thanx for the reply John. > > &gt;I had looked into CUPS but it looked pretty involved (the install and > > &gt;setup). > > &gt;Maybe I will give LPRng a shot. > > &gt; > > &gt;-----Original Message----- > > &gt;From: wlug-bounces(a)mail.wlug.org [mailto:wlug-bounces@mail.wlug.org] On > > &gt;Behalf Of John Stoffel > > &gt;Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 3:51 PM > > &gt;To: Worcester Linux Users Group > > &gt;Subject: Re: [Wlug] printers > > &gt; > > &gt; > > &gt;Don&gt; I've got a quick question about printers. Is there a > > printers.conf > > &gt; > > &gt;Don&gt; file in Red Hat like there is in Solaris (I couldn't find one). > > &gt;Don&gt; Here's my issue: > > &gt; > > &gt;Don&gt; I have 5 servers in a 9i RAC array and I don't want to set up my > > 50 > > &gt; > > &gt;Don&gt; printers on each server. Can anyone suggest a way to > > &quot;copy&quot; > > &gt;Don&gt; the printers I set up on one server to the other 4? > > &gt; > > &gt;Sure, just setup one box as your master, using LPRng. Then you install > > &gt;LPRng on all the client systems with an /etc/printcap sorta like this: > > &gt; > > &gt; # LPRng: /etc/printcap file > > &gt; # > > &gt; # Forward all jobs to the print server > > &gt; # > > &gt; *:force_localhost@:client:rm=printmaster.foo.com > > &gt; > > &gt; > > &gt;Then when you add/delete printers on the server, they appear on the > > &gt;client without any intervention. > > &gt; > > &gt;Now, I can't say I love LPRng, mostly because the Docs are baroque and > > &gt;hard to follow, and the output of various commands is also archane. > > &gt; > > &gt;You might want to look at using CUPS instead, since it's based on and > > &gt;support the Internet Printing Protocol. I use CUPS at home and it's > > &gt;fine. > > &gt; > > &gt;_______________________________________________ > > &gt;Wlug mailing list > > &gt;Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > > &gt;http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > &gt; > > &gt;_______________________________________________ > > &gt;Wlug mailing list > > &gt;Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > > &gt;http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wlug mailing list > > Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org > > http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug > > > > > >-- >Chuck Haines >chaines(a)gmail.com >------------------------------------------- >Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity >WPI Class of 2005 >------------------------------------------- >AIM: CyberGrex >YIM: CyberGrex_27 >ICQ: 3707881 >------------------------------------------- >_______________________________________________ >Wlug mailing list >Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org >http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

1 0

Re: [Wlug] printers
by Son Nguyen 06 Sep '04

06 Sep '04

Keith, >From: Keith Wright <kwright(a)free-comp-shop.com> >Reply-To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug(a)mail.wlug.org> >To: wlug(a)mail.wlug.org >Subject: Re: [Wlug] printers >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:26:53 -0400 > > > From: "Son Nguyen" <snguyen(a)hotmail.com> > > > > I would recommend not using LPRng. It is too old. > >As an old codger in training, I take that personally. >You remind me of Perlis's comment on Algol60: > Not perfect, but a big improvement over its successors. > This commend is not meant to insult. Just that almost every distributions are using cups. I have had request from my users that I should retro fit lrpng into my network. Although it is not impossible, it is less versitile than cups. I have not had much problems with both the applets and web based configuration. >I don't even know what LPRng is, I suppose it's the New-Gnu version >of the ancient bin/lpr program, from back in the days when programs >were more prized for working than for having a Web interface. I totally agree. I would rather use the console command instead, but it is nice to have an alternative configuration method for those who are not confortable at the command line. > >My printer is attached to a dual boot machine that now runs >Linux only, with a Samba server so that Diane can print >via the network from her laptop. It worked pretty much >the first time, the main problem being getting the Windows >laptop to notice it. > >I can print from the printer/Linux machine, but when I tried >to use the much-touted CUPS web-based set-up to connect to the >printer from another Linux machine, it went totaly wonky. >Certain buttons sent the browser in an apparent infinite loop. >(By Turing, you can never be sure, but I waited long with no action) >Sometimes it would take me to some crazy random place in the >Internet, to pictures of buildings that had the same name >as my server machine, as though some mad programmer had >rewritten bin/hostname to search Google for its name. > Have you considered connecting the printer to the windows box, share it and then map it via the linux? How about a a dsl router with the network printer capability? I love the external jetdirect parrellel to ethernet device. >It was not high priority, since ftp works and I have to walk >to the printer machine anyway to get the paper, so I quit. > > > I understand that CUPS seems difficult, but once you understand it, > > it is the next best thing. > >At first I thought you were recommending it as second-best, but >maybe "next best" means Best Real Soon Now. > > > In my office, I have setup my kickstart > > to install 300+ printers on all of my Redhat Linux V3 Workstation > > machines (100+). > >Eh? You need 300 printers for 100 workstations? > My offices are in Bedford (MA), McLean (VA), NJ, and Tampa (FL). I have to allow users to printer to any printers on my network for virtual meeting purposes. Sonny > > You can configure it via console, applet, or even web. > >Not me, maybe you can. > > > Fedora and Redhat has gone that route and I believe that > > others have too. It is much better than LPRng can every be. > >Oh, I suppose, but much better can you make something that >does what I used to with "cat scratch.ps >/dev/lp0"? > > -- Keith >_______________________________________________ >Wlug mailing list >Wlug(a)mail.wlug.org >http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug

1 0

vendor recommendation
by Baris Hasdemir 05 Sep '04

05 Sep '04

hi list, Would you guys give me recommendations for a company around Massachusetts selling Linux pre-installed desktop computers at a good price/performance ratio? I would also appreciate Linux pre-installed laptop/notebook sellers are welcome, as well though I think that it is harder to find. Thank you baris

5 4