| |
SM3LKS > BPQ 18.08.99 09:35l 278 Lines 9608 Bytes #-9920 (0) @ EU
BID : 43471_SM3LKS
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: BPQ Obsolete
Path: DB0AAB<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MAK<DB0HOT<OK0PKL<OK0PPR<OK0PJI<OM0PBB<HA5KDF<
HG8GL<HA5OB<HA3PG<OH2RBI<OH2RBJ<OH1RBD<OH1RBU<OH0RBA<SM0NQR<SK0CT<
SL0ZS<SL5ZXN<SK5WB<SK5AE<SK5BB<SK4HC<SK4EA<SK4BW<SM3ESS<SK3BG<SK3UB<
SK3JR<SM3LKS
Sent: 990817/2037Z @:SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU #:43471 [Ostersund] LinFBB7.00g $:43471_SM
From: SM3LKS@SM3LKS.Z.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@EU
SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU wrote:
>>But I have not seen any other message, originating in Sweden, that support you.
>Supporting me?
Sorry, my fingers didn't want to type what I wanted them to.
It should have been "supporting your opininon", not "support you".
I understand your reaction. :-)
...snip...
>>OK, a good reason, but educate us instead of saing that we don't know
>>anything and your way is best.
>>You just say a thing, but not explaining so people can understand.
>I try to explain what I mean!
>A problem is that packet radio is rather advanced and most users don't know
>very much about it, maybe not even enough to realise what this is all about.
>It is the same reason for why people don't know how to set their tnc
>parameters and there for cause alot of problems for their self and their
>fellow hams.
I think you just insulted all packetusers in the world by that statement.
You just said that most users don't know what they are doing, and not
knowing what packetradio is.
I agree with you that some users don't know how to set their tnc, but they
are not so many, and they are often getting help from others that know how
to do it.
>Some of those reading this are node operator sysops etc and some of them maybe
>
>have a little more packet knowledge.
>But how shall that be sloved?
>
I think I might be one of those users.
Sysop for 2 bbs's, and 4 nodes. (Covering about 20% of the area of Sweden)
>>>Example: Just saing that BPQ has a bad packetdriver isn't enough.
>>>Everyone doesn't know what a packetdriver is.
>>They can always ask!
I do now.
What is your explanation of what a packetdriver is ?
(Just to assure that we are talking the same language)
>>>An explanation should avoid a lot of misunderstanding, and replies.
>>What should I do?
>>Include some basic packet review in every bulletin?
No, but you might explain more so we understand you better.
You can't assume we automatically knows what you are talking about.
All users does'nt want to ask questions if they don't understand things,
they might actually lose the interest of the subject instead.
...snip...
>The performance of tfpcx is better than bpq, since bpq lack some
>important
>features, but evern better is flexnet!
What features is so important ?
...snip...
>>You can't possible know how this configuration works.
>>Have you seen it in action ?
>Very similair setup!
Similar is not near enough.
Summary: you havn't seen it in action.
...snip...
>You haven't compared with any other setup!
How do you know that ?
Do you know what comparisons I've done ?
I didn't se you in the neighborhood when I did them ?
I havn't told you what comparisons I've made.
...snip...
>>Im am really interested in improving the network, but I'm realistic.
>Try flexnet!
>The better packet driver really imporves things, especially on user ports!
Here we are again, no agument why I should use FlexNet, just telling me to
do it. (No way I'm following such command)
It's like a child that discovered something new, "Try it, try it. It's
better that everything else you ever tested..."
No facts WHY, or HOW it is better.
Almost every bulleting that I've seen originating from FlexNet-fans has
this single standard responce: "Use FlexNet !"
(You are not the only one, but the message is exactly the same)
>>I can't do changes in my corner, and automatically think that everyone is
>>about to do the same changes.
>So?
I think that is quite an ignorant responce.
You clearly want to run your own race, without checking that any other
ever will follow you.
I don't accept things to progress just because "it's time to do it".
History has shown us that progress just for the cause of progress isn't
so effective as it should have been if it came naturally.
We must let the progress have it's own pace, you can't push it.
>Some one has to begin, and to setup a net/rom link via a flexnet network is
>possible so you will not destroy the network.
>Only improve it!
OK, how do you do that when FlexNet doesn't support NET/ROM-routing ?
(Perhaps I have misunderstood some of the previous bulletins that said
that FlexNet doesn't soppurt "that very strange routings" ?)
...snip...
>>In one place where they have a FlexNet-node, the network actually hung for
>>extensive periodes because a non-standard resonse from FlexNet.
>Don't know what you mean?
>Could you please explain, I'm very interested!
>
>Flexnet follows ax25 and works with every other packet driver doing that!
>
What packetdriver the program is using is not the problem.
The problem is also not related to the ax25-protocol.
It is the respons from FlexNet to a user/application when connecting,
disconnecting or fails to connect that is the problem here.
I should have been more specific, the whole network didn't hang, it was
really the bbs-forward that hung. (Sorry)
But the problem is still there.
It was a while ago, and the actual message is lost in space, but the
FlexNet-node responded something like "Goodbye...." instead of the
standard responce "Failure with..."
The calling program was assuming either "Connected to...",
"Failure with..." or "Busy". The result was that it was waiting for the
correct responce until it disconnected due to time-out.
>Bpq doesn't really don't follow, that causes protocol errors
>some times, but also between bpq nodes etc. But that happens seldom.
>If it should be flexnets tries to use the flexnet protocol can you turn
>that test of for very link to a bpq node.
Sorry but I don't quite follow you here.
BPQ do follow the ax25-specifications, and NET/ROM-specification.
If there is any problems in the transport of packets, it is almost always
incorrect setup that causes the problems.
It can be anything such as poor signal-path, wrong txdelay, wrong paclen,
etc....
...snip...
>>This is often an impossible task, as many nodes is unattended and remote,
>>and that makes a replacement from NET/ROM-tnc to FlexNet-computer a VERY
>>bad thing if you want a network that is stable.
>No, rmnc/flexnet is very good for unatrended stations, much better working
>than any tnc! More reliable and rather cheap.
>Pc/flexnet is not the only alternative.
>
>>(Computers do crash you know, NET/ROM-tnc's has NO problems there)
>>That makes a NET/ROM-compatible node better than FlexNet in any place of
>>the network.
>No, gues you didn't know about tha rmnc hardware!
>But rmnc flexnet is much more reliable than any tnc!
(quote from InterNet)
-----
Please note that an RMNC channel card contains the etches for a 6809 based
processor plus AFSK (1K2 bps) or FSK (9K6-76K8 bps) modem or MAX232 kiss port.
One master processor card (without modems) is required per node.
A minimum 2 port RMNC node would consist of 3 X Channel cards
(1 Master and 2 slaves), 1 X reset card, one backplane and associated
racking/power supply and an optional bus monitor card.
-----
(unquote)
To make a 2-port node, you must have:
1 mastercard
2 slavecards
2 modemcards
1 resetcard
1 backplane
(power supply)
It might be just as reliable as any TNC, but not as you say; better.
Too many cards to connect to eachother, with possible bad connnections
in the backplane that might come with the time.
I think the TNC-2-nodes is an easier, and a lot cheaper, thing to use,
just insert the NET/ROM-EPROM in the TNC, and away you go.
...snip...
>>A 486DX33 has almost never more than 10% usage of processorcapacity,
>>running a packet-node and BBS in the same computer.
>It is good for that.
Yes it is really good for that, the benchmarks says so.
(But I thing you ment: Is it good because of that)
No, but it isn't bad because of that.
You have at least 90% processorcapacity in reserve.
>But how about when the hd is used, how much processor time is needed for that?
The same amount of processortime as if you are using FlexNet.
Using any type of cache, read/write often occurs when the processor has
little else to do. (Unless it is huge amount of data of course)
>But also te hd speed, amount of ram for hd cache, bus speed etc affects the
>speed.
Yes it does, regardless of the application.
...snip...
>The more modern pc computers is not like the old days, they are made to be
>suitable as servers, bbses etc.
>
>That is why you not should use a 286 etc even if they are fast enough.
>A 386 or 486 at least, that aslo makes it impossibel to user better nodes than
>bpq.
They were just as reliable then, if you used software without any
bugs. Software, peripherials, etc... has been better over the years.
Using a 286 with modern peripherials, software compiled for 286, you have
just as reliable computer as the newer ones, just slower.
But I agree 286 is outdated in most parts of the world, but not useless
or less reliable.
...snip...
>>>Your node is not like that!
>>
>>How do you know that ?
>>And what node is not like that ?, my Linux-node or the 386-BPQ-node ?
>At least if you use fbb and bpq is the system not very stable.
>
It is as stable as you want it to be.
AS I said: only 2 craches, of any kind, over the years. Both hd-craches
that could happend even to a "stable" newer computer with FlexNet.
...snip...
>>Linux-node:
>>More than 2 years of uninterupted 24h/day usage. No problems.
>Nice as it should be!
>What node are you using?
The setup is for the moment:
----------------------------
AX25-daemon: ax25d (ax25-utils-2.1.42a)
NET/ROM-daemon: netromd (ax25-utils-2.1.42a)
Userfrontend of the node: LinuxNode v0.2.4 (ax25-utils-2.1.42a)
BBS-software: LinFBB v7.00g
...snip.. (huge signaturetext removed)
73 de SM3LKS
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
