Questions about WGS95 and A/UX

[eraser]

I need some advice from the A/UX masters. I've found an awesome use for my WGS95 and A/UX ... as a fileserver and bridge machine for my the classic Mac network I am finally building out. I do have a few questions though.

The old Macs will be on a LocalTalk network (ranging from PhoneNet to "EtherTalk" depending on the Mac). The modern network is wireless and the storage is on a Linux NAS with everything mounted as NFS. I plan for the WGS95 to mount NFS shares from the Linux NAS and then share them with the old Macs using AppleTalk Pro.

Question 1: The WGS95 has 10Mbps networking built-in. For old Macs that's not a big deal (and PhoneNet will never even get close to that) but for later era PowerMacs that is a bit slow. Are there any 100Mbit Nubus cards that A/UX supports? I certainly wouldn't expect the WGS95 to be able to push a full 100Mbps but it would be a nice boost from 10Mbps.

Question 2: If 100 Mbps isn't an option I am considering using 2 NICs: NIC 1 will be initialized as TCP/IP and mount the NFS share and NIC 2 will be used for AppleShare Pro and be exclusively AppleTalk. That way when an old Mac either reads from or writes to an NFS mounted share there would be a full 10 Mbps instead of a single NIC trying to do both, which would really cut throughput. Are there any problems with this approach? Which cards are supported?

Question 3: I have an ImageWriter II with the AppleTalk module. I already have a Cayman box (not set up yet) that will bridge the LocalTalk network with ethernet. Should I just leave the ImageWriter II as a node on the LocalTalk network or should I share it out using AppleShare Pro? What are the pros/cons?

Any other ideas or suggestions? I have been waiting for a while to build this network because I am tired of using Zip drives and etc to move data. I am also excited that I will have a good use for the WGS95 and A/UX to get to do what it was designed to do. :quadra:

 

[ChristTrekker]

I don't think any 100Mb cards are supported under A/UX. I checked the FAQ and didn't even find reference to 100Mb.

Regarding the other questions, I'll let someone with more network experience field them.

 

[Gorgonops]

The old Macs will be on a LocalTalk network (ranging from PhoneNet to "EtherTalk" depending on the Mac). The modern network is wireless and the storage is on a Linux NAS with everything mounted as NFS. I plan for the WGS95 to mount NFS shares from the Linux NAS and then share them with the old Macs using AppleTalk Pro.

Is that actually a legitimate mode of operation supported by AppleTalk Pro? Just spitballing it seems to me *very* likely you're going to run into issues like file locking problems (and lousy performance) trying to share via AppleTalk an NFS mount. (Or have you already tried this and it works?)

Does your Linux NAS allow you to install software? Simply installing netatalk-ddp would seem a more straightforward way to give you the raw throughput you're after.

 

[eraser]

Is that actually a legitimate mode of operation supported by AppleTalk Pro?

Actually Apple says that it is:

Yes, the AWS 95 can NFS mount the data from the other UNIX systems, and then the NFS mount points can be shared with AppleShare Pro. However, this is not a recommended configuration. The server software was optimized for performance using AppleShare services only.

http://support.apple.com/kb/TA29581?viewlocale=en_US

Just spitballing it seems to me *very* likely you're going to run into issues like file locking problems (and lousy performance) trying to share via AppleTalk an NFS mount. (Or have you already tried this and it works?)

I can see the concern. Since my project doesn't involve a multiple user setup I wasn't as concerned about that part. I did figure there would be some stumbling but considering the slow connection I was hoping that the WGS would be able to 'smooth that out' by the time the traffic reached the other NIC. Am I way off in thinking that?

Does your Linux NAS allow you to install software? Simply installing netatalk-ddp would seem a more straightforward way to give you the raw throughput you're after.

Yeah. I custom built it with Ubuntu server. Cool, I will look at doing that. The WGS95 would at least still be necessary for the translation from TCP/IP to pure AppleTalk protocol. (Coming off Linux it would be AFP mounted over TCP/IP.)

My other concern (related to this) is one I forgot to ask in the first post: Since I can't share more than a 2GB partition/share with AppleTalk how can I break up larger shares? Can I 'partition' individual directories in AppleShare Pro without splitting up the mount points or storage?

Thanks for the info.

 

[bbraun]

Use netatalk 2.2.x, and you can share via ddp (that's appletalk). >2GB works fine.

 

[Gorgonops]

I can see the concern. Since my project doesn't involve a multiple user setup I wasn't as concerned about that part. I did figure there would be some stumbling but considering the slow connection I was hoping that the WGS would be able to 'smooth that out' by the time the traffic reached the other NIC. Am I way off in thinking that?

Even only single-user the server might try to do file locking, and that's one of the most fragile parts of NFS.

The other thing you may well run into is you might have to play some games dumbing down your Linux box's NFS daemon to even get it to play nice with A/UX. Old NFS clients can have interoperability issues with newer servers that can turn the whole game into something of a black art. (I'm sure A/UX supports no better than NFSv2 over UDP. I know with old SUN boxes you sometimes have to crank the block sizes down manually, among other things, to keep the server from swamping the slow client. Granted it's been a while so I can't be much more specific; I'm actually forgetting whether I ever mounted an NFS share during the time I had an A/UX box... I *think* I did, and I think I had to futz with something. And this was back in... 2003?)

Yeah. I custom built it with Ubuntu server. Cool, I will look at doing that. The WGS95 would at least still be necessary for the translation from TCP/IP to pure AppleTalk protocol. (Coming off Linux it would be AFP mounted over TCP/IP.)

Netatalk versions prior to 3.x can speak genuine Appletalk/DDP in addition to AFP, which means your GatorBox should work to bridge the file services over to your Localtalk connected clients. (Again, the important part is "prior to version 3.x". They dropped DDP from the 3.x tree.)

 

[NJRoadfan]

The Gatorbox CS with the right software uploaded into it can also re-share NFS shares as AFP.

 

[eraser]

Use netatalk 2.2.x, and you can share via ddp (that's appletalk). >2GB works fine.

Ah, I didn't explain the 2GB limitation. I'd like to be able to mount some of the shares on the old Macs which would certainly be pre-OS 8. That's why I mentioned the 2GB limit. Even though AppleTalk would officially support it, OS 6 or 7 won't.

The other thing you may well run into is you might have to play some games dumbing down your Linux box's NFS daemon to even get it to play nice with A/UX.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

The Gatorbox CS with the right software uploaded into it can also re-share NFS shares as AFP.

Should I even use A/UX for a role? I was excited to actually get to put it to use.

The other factor is that as I dig more into setting up AppleTalk on the Linux server the more I really don't want to deal with it. The NAS is working flawlessly as an appliance and I have had no issues with it. I was really hoping that I could find a good way to both keep my Linux server running without too much reconfiguration and let A/UX play a role in bridging the networks.

Thoughts or suggestions?

 

[bbraun]

Ah, I didn't explain the 2GB limitation. I'd like to be able to mount some of the shares on the old Macs which would certainly be pre-OS 8. That's why I mentioned the 2GB limit. Even though AppleTalk would officially support it, OS 6 or 7 won't.

Right. And I'm saying it works. I've got a mult-terabyte netatalk server that mounts fine with system 3.3 on a 512k. File size and volume size reporting is off, but it doesn't affect normal operation.

As for NFS, the linux kernel NFS server is on the less compatible side of the spectrum for NFS servers. I can't remember if I had problems with A/UX specifically, but I ended up switching to unfsd for my NFS on linux due to compatibility with older systems like HPUX, Ultrix, and the like.

If you want compatibility, storage volume, performance, and ease of maintenance, netatalk on your linux file server, and then an ethertalk to localtalk bridge is the way to go. The gatorbox will work fine, but is also overkill. A simple printer adapter will work too. No amount of tuning or configuring of A/UX is going to get it as fast as a modern machine, have as much storage as a modern machine, or be as reliable as a modern machine. Plus, you get compatibility all the way from a 512k through to the latest OSX machines. If you need assistance setting up netatalk, I refer you to this thread.

But, that's not necessarily the point. Sometimes you just want it that way because you want it that way, and that's certainly understandable. If you want to set it up with A/UX, understanding all of the above, we can all relate to that too.

 

[NJRoadfan]

Ah, I didn't explain the 2GB limitation. I'd like to be able to mount some of the shares on the old Macs which would certainly be pre-OS 8. That's why I mentioned the 2GB limit. Even though AppleTalk would officially support it, OS 6 or 7 won't.

Pretty sure it works fine. I have mounted AFP shares much larger than that using GS/OS without a problem. The only issue is the disk space stats in Finder windows will be garbled.

 

[eraser]

Right. And I'm saying it works. I've got a mult-terabyte netatalk server that mounts fine with system 3.3 on a 512k. File size and volume size reporting is off, but it doesn't affect normal operation.

retty sure it works fine. I have mounted AFP shares much larger than that using GS/OS without a problem. The only issue is the disk space stats in Finder windows will be garbled.

Awesome. Thanks for the correction.

As for NFS, the linux kernel NFS server is on the less compatible side of the spectrum for NFS servers. I can't remember if I had problems with A/UX specifically, but I ended up switching to unfsd for my NFS on linux due to compatibility with older systems like HPUX, Ultrix, and the like.

I will look into that. I am also going to read through the Classic Mac Networking Guide and think about this stuff.

If you want compatibility, storage volume, performance, and ease of maintenance, netatalk on your linux file server, and then an ethertalk to localtalk bridge is the way to go. The gatorbox will work fine, but is also overkill. A simple printer adapter will work too.

It's interesting that the printer adapters never mention any of that in the documentation. Why is that? Is it like the Apple thing and the 2GB limit? Apple says don't do it but only because size reporting will be wrong. Is there some minor limitation with the localtalk printer bridges that nobody cares about but the manufacturers don't want to address?

But, that's not necessarily the point. Sometimes you just want it that way because you want it that way, and that's certainly understandable. If you want to set it up with A/UX, understanding all of the above, we can all relate to that too.

Bingo. I completely realize that this whole project is ... inefficient. |) A/UX is a fascinating little footnote in Mac (and especially 68K) history. I feel like so often people put some effort into getting it booted, look around for a little while and say "Cool. Useless, but cool." I'd like to see if I can make it do some tricks. (And maybe inefficiently solve a problem ... if it isn't too painful.)

I will read through a bunch of stuff and think about this and update the thread with my thoughts once I've learned more.

Thanks again for helping me out here guys. I really appreciate it.

 

[Gorgonops]

Bingo. I completely realize that this whole project is ... inefficient. |) A/UX is a fascinating little footnote in Mac (and especially 68K) history. I feel like so often people put some effort into getting it booted, look around for a little while and say "Cool. Useless, but cool." I'd like to see if I can make it do some tricks. (And maybe inefficiently solve a problem ... if it isn't too painful.)

Hey, I totally sympathize, and it does seem a shame to "waste" such a glorious machine as an WGS 95. That said... a WGS 95 also has a 300 watt power supply and fragile old SCSI hard drives, it's really not the sort of thing most people want to leave running in their house 24/7 these days. And really, one thing I can say about Netatalk is it's one of those things that once it's set up "just works".

One thing I sort of wish I had right now was one of those Ethernet-Localtalk bridges. Anyone have a pile of them and want to let one go cheap?

 

[mcdermd]

I threw a Gatorbox in the trash in 2006

 

[eraser]

Hey, I totally sympathize, and it does seem a shame to "waste" such a glorious machine as an WGS 95. That said... a WGS 95 also has a 300 watt power supply and fragile old SCSI hard drives, it's really not the sort of thing most people want to leave running in their house 24/7 these days.

Agreed totally. A key reason I am willing to use the WGS95 for this is because it won't be online 24/7 for the exact reasons you mention. I only plan to have it online when I have one or more vintage Macs running and they need to talk to mass storage. There may be a week or more stretch where it doesn't need to be on at all. If it were a machine that was going to be seeing 24/7 duty then I would have a completely different approach. The Linux NAS, for example, is a custom built very low power consumption fanless machine.