Network storage - OS2

This is a discussion on Network storage - OS2 ; Hi Folks, I'd like to put some reasonably economic storage on my home network. I have been thinking of the Netgear SC101 and the Western Digital Essential NetCenter WDXE1600JB. Anyone know how happy these are to work with OS/2? I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Network storage

  1. Network storage

    Hi Folks,

    I'd like to put some reasonably economic storage on my home network. I
    have been thinking of the Netgear SC101 and the Western Digital
    Essential NetCenter WDXE1600JB. Anyone know how happy these are to
    work with OS/2? I don't mind firing up XP to do setup if I must.

    Ian
    --


  2. Re: Network storage

    Ian Johnston wrote:
    > I'd like to put some reasonably economic storage on my home network. I
    > have been thinking of the Netgear SC101 and the Western Digital
    > Essential NetCenter WDXE1600JB.


    I don't know the WD one but the SC101 is cheap consumerware. It is known
    to cause problems even without OS/2.

    > Anyone know how happy these are to
    > work with OS/2? I don't mind firing up XP to do setup if I must.


    Well, if you are lookig for a /reliable/ solution, look for an old PC
    and pay for a pizza for a good friend of yours with Linux knowledge to
    install a samba server. I recommend samba 3.0.22 or any newer stable
    version.
    You need only about 200 to 400 MHz CPU power for a pretty fast file
    server. But do not try less than 64MB RAM.

    OS/2 uses the LANMAN2 protocol which is no longer used by windows
    clients. You can be pretty sure that most of this cheap NAS servers are
    not well tested with regard to this protocol level. At least EAs will
    never work.
    With samba everything works fine. And if not, it is very likely to get
    fixed soon.


    Marcel

  3. Re: Network storage

    On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:04:20 +0200, Marcel Mller wrote:

    >With samba everything works fine. And if not, it is very likely to get
    >fixed soon.


    I have been telling anyone that will listen that here is a problem with
    samba on OS/2 on JFS partitions.
    Doug Kneupper



  4. Re: Network storage

    [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marcel_M=FCller?=
    ], who wrote in article <45080fa7$0$17402$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>:
    > Well, if you are lookig for a /reliable/ solution, look for an old PC
    > and pay for a pizza for a good friend of yours with Linux knowledge to
    > install a samba server. I recommend samba 3.0.22 or any newer stable
    > version.
    > You need only about 200 to 400 MHz CPU power for a pretty fast file
    > server. But do not try less than 64MB RAM.


    I'm afraid it is going to be a very expensive solution. You are
    talking about extra 0.1 .. 0.2 KW of power consumption, right? On the
    top edge, it is going to be about $0.60 a day; about $200 a year.
    Even on the lower end it is about $100 a year...

    Or are current Linuxes good with a "transparent standby mode"? At
    least (not fully related) my T23 laptop is "absolutely cold" when I
    boot the newest Knoppix; with OS/2 it is warm, and with WinXP no-SP it
    is quite hot...

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya

  5. Re: Network storage

    Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > I'm afraid it is going to be a very expensive solution. You are
    > talking about extra 0.1 .. 0.2 KW of power consumption, right? On the
    > top edge, it is going to be about $0.60 a day; about $200 a year.
    > Even on the lower end it is about $100 a year...


    Your rounding was a bit rough.

    My PII-333 server with 10k SCSI disk uses about 60W.
    When the disk is in spin-down it will be about 10W less.

    A P233MMX will use in the order of 45W. A fried of mine has measured 34W
    with standard components (IDE disk).

    (Keep in mind that these servers have no monster graphic cards and
    usually no monitor. A 512k ISA-VGA is sufficient if it fits into the
    mainboard.)

    My workstation with 15k+7k2 SCSI drives, AthlonXP and GigaMO etc. uses
    about 130W at full CPU load. (still less than 0.2kW)

    The power usage is measured by a special power adaptor lend out from the
    local power provider.


    So we are talking about $50 a year.
    The SC101 uses at most 80W (datasheet). I guess it is actually in the
    order of 25W (including the efficiency of the power adaptor).
    Now we are talking about a difference of about $30 a year.

    Since you usually get the old components for nearly free it will take
    you about three years to compensate for the cost of the NAS solution.
    And keep in mind that after 3 years usually 50% of such components are
    either defective or no longer used for other reasons.

    > Or are current Linuxes good with a "transparent standby mode"?


    You are talking about WOL? I did not use that, because the server acts
    as arp proxy, too. And I am in doubt that it will wake up fast enough
    not to cause network timeouts. And those old components usually will not
    support anything but suspend to disk and disk spin-down. Both do not
    require BIOS support.


    Marcel

  6. Re: Network storage

    Doug Kneupper wrote:
    > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:04:20 +0200, Marcel Mller wrote:
    >> With samba everything works fine. And if not, it is very likely to get
    >> fixed soon.


    > I have been telling anyone that will listen that here is a problem with
    > samba on OS/2 on JFS partitions.
    > Doug Kneupper


    Ehhm, I was talking about the IBM peer requester and a samba server, not
    the other way around.


    Marcel

  7. Re: Network storage

    On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:39:03 UTC, Marcel Müller
    wrote:

    > My PII-333 server with 10k SCSI disk uses about 60W.
    > When the disk is in spin-down it will be about 10W less.
    >
    > A P233MMX will use in the order of 45W. A fried of mine has measured 34W
    > with standard components (IDE disk).


    The optimal PII CPU, power wise, is the PII-300. The 233 and 266 use
    earlier technology and thus more power. The 333 obviously uses a bit
    more than the 300...



  8. Re: Network storage

    [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marcel_M=FCller?=
    ], who wrote in article <45087a39$0$5148$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>:

    > > I'm afraid it is going to be a very expensive solution. You are
    > > talking about extra 0.1 .. 0.2 KW of power consumption, right? On the
    > > top edge, it is going to be about $0.60 a day; about $200 a year.
    > > Even on the lower end it is about $100 a year...

    >
    > Your rounding was a bit rough.
    >
    > My PII-333 server with 10k SCSI disk uses about 60W.
    > When the disk is in spin-down it will be about 10W less.
    >
    > A P233MMX will use in the order of 45W. A fried of mine has measured 34W
    > with standard components (IDE disk).
    >
    > (Keep in mind that these servers have no monster graphic cards and
    > usually no monitor. A 512k ISA-VGA is sufficient if it fits into the
    > mainboard.)
    >
    > My workstation with 15k+7k2 SCSI drives, AthlonXP and GigaMO etc. uses
    > about 130W at full CPU load. (still less than 0.2kW)


    > The power usage is measured by a special power adaptor lend out from the
    > local power provider.


    Thanks for your head up on this. Obviously, I am still thinking about
    getting a power meter ;-). It is also nice to know that one can lend
    them; I assume you discuss Europe here; I'm in US now.

    BTW, the reports I saw about APC Back-UPS Pro indicate that they may
    have a built-in power meter; do not know whether one needs a Win32
    (laptop?) to read the results... Anybody with more information?

    Yours,
    Ilya

+ Reply to Thread