Text 5054, 126 rader
Skriven 2005-03-16 23:30:34 av Alan Zisman (1:106/2000.0)
   Kommentar till text 5006 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: lan
===============
-=> CHARLES ANGELICH wrote to ALAN ZISMAN <=-


 AZ>> Although the Win98 server showed up in the My Network
 AZ>> Places list, it gave an error message saying I was not
 AZ>> permitted to connect. I installed NetBEUI from the XP CD,
 AZ>> and it now connects without problem.

 CA> What "server" are you referring to? From what you have
 CA> described there are no "servers" it's a LAN with shared
 CA> resources - no server. An unused client does not constitute a
 CA> 'server'.

We're running into semantics here... if 'server' means a system running a
Network Operating System, then I don't have a server for my school network,
since the two computers that are 'acting as servers' are running Win98. If
'server' means a system that is primary used to share files (or printers or
other resources) to other computers, than I have a pair of servers.

I tend to assume that if a system is acting like a server, then it IS a
server... but others may disagree.

 
 AZ> 2) Local Area Networks can be designed to work around a
 AZ> dedicated server-- Novell Netware, or one of a variety of
 AZ> Windows server versions are examples. Peer-to-peer networks
 AZ> use software in which any of the systems can be sharing
 AZ> resources (typically files or printers) with the others.
 AZ> WFWG, Win9x, WinNT Pro, Win 2000 Pro, or Win XP (Home or
 AZ> Pro) can all be set up for peer-to-peer networks (as could
 AZ> the old Lantastic).

 CA> When there is a machine designated as a 'server' that machine
 CA> is executing 'server software' and the workstations access that
 CA> machine using software described as a 'client'. With P2P there
 CA> are no servers/clients. All machines are executing the same
 CA> software. Or am I wrong about this fact?

All systems are running Win98 (actually, a few are running Win2000 and now one
is running WinXP, but that doesn't really change anything)... but File Sharing
is only turned on for the two 'servers'... so they are 'serving' files, the
others are receiving files-- just as would be the case if I was running, say,
Novell Netware on those two systems.

 AZ> In my school, I use Win9x peer-to-peer networking, but
 AZ> designate a couple of systems as what I refer to as
 AZ> quasi-servers; they're acting as servers because no one
 AZ> sits down at them and uses them as workstations. I do that
 AZ> for a couple of reasons. One is security; I wouldn't want a
 AZ> kid to be working at the system that stores everyone else's
 AZ> files, records for keyboarding and ESL software, etc. The
 AZ> other is performance... I found that having someone using
 AZ> possibly CPU or Disk-intensive programs while others were
 AZ> accessing files or printing via that system made for a
 AZ> poorly-performing workstation and a poorly-performing
 AZ> server.

 CA> This arrangement works for you, obviously, but the designation
 CA> of 'server' and 'client' seems to be clouding what is actually
 CA> there. This is one of many reasons why discussions of
 CA> networking become confusing (to me). The terminology is applied
 CA> to anything and everything and it becomes a mishmash of random
 CA> information with no way to find the proper path.

As I said above, one can define the term 'server' in a variety of ways. In my
school district, there has, historically, been some politics around this-- for
a couple of years, the district IT department was pushing what it called a
'Local Area Network Initiative' aiming to put Novell servers into elementary
schools, serving an expensive collection of (in my opinion poorly designed) IBM
educational software. I opposed having my school buy in (schools had to put up
their own money to buy into this program), noting that we already had a local
area network. The IT administrator pooh-poohed my network, since as a
peer-to-peer network, it wasn't a 'real' LAN... regardless of whether it worked
for us (and was affordable by us). The whole experience left me bitter and
twisted around the question of what's a 'real' network, however.

 AZ> But it's a 'quasi-server' because it's running Win9x rather
 AZ> than a 'real' network operating system. In some cases, the
 AZ> distinction can be nominal-- there are reportedly only a
 AZ> few Registry settings different between NT 4 Server and
 AZ> Workstation or Win 2000 Server and Professional-- and a
 AZ> hack floats around the Net to instantly switch between one
 AZ> and the other.

 AZ> A Linux installation can be used either as a workstation or
 AZ> a server; the difference is what optional programs are
 AZ> installed (Apache for web serving, for instance).

 CA> This would also be true for Windows. I don't see a difference
 CA> here?

Other than the limitations that MS has built-into the workstation versions of
Win NT/2000/XP, I would agree. I use Win98 because it doesn't have the same
limitations of # of connections as the workstation versions of NT/2000/XP, and
unlike the MS server packages doesn't require paying MS a licensing fee for
each connected client.

And ironically, even with 60 or so clients, I'm finding these Win98
pseudo-servers very stable-- while my Win98 clients freeze and crash regularly,
the pseudo-servers, which do nothing but sit there sharing files (on one) or
running a couple of databases of student records accessed when the kids use
their typing program or ESL software (the other)-- haven't had to be reset
since September. They are remarkably stable.

 AZ> 3) I agree-- I don't know of any 'theoretical' reason why
 AZ> NetBEUI should be needed on a properly set up TCP/IP
 AZ> network... but it seems to make a big difference in real
 AZ> life.

 CA> I have zero doubts that what you are telling me (and others) is
 CA> true, that NetBEUI makes it all 'come together' and work. I
 CA> just don't like shooting blind not knowing what I am adding to
 CA> my OS or why I am adding it. Somewhere down the road when
 CA> trouble starts I have no place to start because I never knew
 CA> why it worked in the first place.

 CA> I know, I'm being a pest about this but if no one here on FIDO
 CA> knows then I will ask elsewhere and continue my search until it
 CA> ends or I do whichever comes first. :-)

 I'm a pragmatist; if something works, I don't necessarily need to know why.
But 
I'd be interested if you discover anything...
... Inet mail to: alan at zisman dot ca
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.40
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)