OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical > Networking
ArcaOS network compatibility with OS/2
Richard Dunkle:
I think there is a bit of confusion here.
ArcaOS has the Arca Mapper program.
That program can connect to network shared resources. The shares can be on Lan Server, Peer Server, Win10, Win8, Win7, etc. The shares need to use tcpip (sometimes called netbios over tcp). The older operating systems such as Lan Server, Peer, WFWG, Win98, Win NT, Win2000, use a less secure connection protocol but you can connect to them all with ArcaOS "out of the box."
And I forgot to mention you can even connect to Apple Mac OS shares, High Sierra, etc.
ArcaOS does not install the Peer components at install unless you select one of the protocols for netbios. But... do you really need Peer? A simple selection of tcp only in the adapters is all you need for most shares using the the ArcaMapper to connect.
There is a file that controls the protocol. It is: \mptn\etc\samba\smb.conf
With certain parameters you can allow various types of connections.
The file is used by the Samba server as well as the Arca Mapper.
Here is what you need to connect to a Lan Server or Peer share:
---8<--- snip --- 8<---
# samba client & server file
# smb.conf
#
; client params
; these two for LAN Server /peer
client lanman auth = yes
client NTLMv2 auth = no
; enable this param for Win10 shares
;client NTLMv2 auth = yes
---8<--- snip --- 8<---
You can also use the Netdrive program to connect to the shared resources. It is a fantastic drop in replacement for ArcaMapper. I actually prefer the Netdrive program over the ArcaMapper. The Netdrive can connect to ftp, scp, local loopback, in addition to what the ArcaMapper does. The Netdrive program is not free though.
If you want your ArcaOS to act as a server, you can use the Samba server or install the Peer Server. The Samba server is a more modern way to go, but you don't have the slick Lan Server GUI, and you will be serving files in a less secure protocol.
Andreas Kohl:
--- Quote from: Eugene Gorbunoff on March 08, 2018, 02:00:55 pm ---It's not clear, does ArcaOS work with other OS/2 computers in local network?
--- End quote ---
Partially, but without any SSI capabilities.
--- Quote ---IBMPEERS is absent in ArcaOS. Samba client is installed instead.
--- End quote ---
IBM Peer for OS/2 was a layered product inside Warp Connect. It was already replaced in Warp 4 with the File and Print Client. Samba is a server application not a client.
--- Quote ---We can't find information how ArcaOS computer can access disks of other OS/2 computer?
(other OS/2 computer: eComStation 2.2 with IBMPEERS)
--- End quote ---
It depends how the other OS/2 node provides the access methods.
For example Samba cannot share disks at all, it can only share directory trees and printer queues.
--- Quote ---How to install IBMPEERS?
--- End quote ---
Others already mentioned how to install the File and Print Client.
Doug Clark:
I would like to make a couple of corrections, observations - you all can jump in and correct me if I get it wrong.
SAMBA and IBM File and Print client, and server can coexist on the same machine. I have a SAMBA server running on a eComStation 2.2 beta machine with the networking stuff from WSeB also loaded and running. However I do not have Netbios over TCPIP installed. The SAMBA handles connections from MAC and Windows 7, Netbios handles all the OS/2 type machines.
I am laboring under the assumption that Netbios is more secure than TCP/IP or Netbios over TCP/IP because Netbios cannot be routed. However since I am also running SAMBA that advantage (if it really was an advantage) doesn't exist.
You can map a remote OS2 drive via either Netbios (IBM file and print), or SAMBA, or both - even at the same time, although you will obviously have to use a different drive letter for each mapping. For example I have mapped \\server1\ddrive as q: using IBM file and Print (Netbios) and \\server1\ddrive as W: using SAMBA at the same time. (I am using a different domain name for IBM File and Print than the domain name for SAMBA - there may be another/better way but that how I have it set up.)
My experience is that SAMBA transfers large files faster than IBM File Print (Netbios). But smaller transfers seem to be faster with Netbios.
I have connected and transferred files fine over WiFi using Netbios with OS/2 machines. I also have an I/O Gear Ethernet to WiFi adapter that will not connect or tranfer with Netbios via WiFi but will with SAMBA.
Configuring the WSeB networking/server components and users is MUCH easier than setting up a SAMBA server. But I believe you can make that statement about almost all Linux based software; everything and anything non-Linux is easier to setup and use than software from the Linux world.
Doug Bissett:
--- Quote ---SAMBA and IBM File and Print client, and server can coexist on the same machine.
--- End quote ---
True, up to a point. As you note, you can use NETBIOS, but not NETBIOS over TCPIP.
--- Quote ---I am laboring under the assumption that Netbios is more secure than TCP/IP or Netbios over TCP/IP because Netbios cannot be routed.
--- End quote ---
Again, true, up to a point. One big problem with NETBIOS, is that it cannot be routed, so you are are severely restricted in what you can do with it.
--- Quote ---I have connected and transferred files fine over WiFi using Netbios with OS/2 machines. I also have an I/O Gear Ethernet to WiFi adapter that will not connect or tranfer with Netbios via WiFi but will with SAMBA.
--- End quote ---
Some older WiFi adapters will do NETBIOS, but very few new ones will. Even wired routers won't pass the packets. I suppose that does make it a bit more secure, but at what cost? Then, of course, there is the >2GB file size problem.
--- Quote ---Configuring the WSeB networking/server components and users is MUCH easier than setting up a SAMBA server.
--- End quote ---
That is not really true. What is true, is that there is a learning curve that you must go through. Confusing things, by using NETBIOS, really isn't productive. It has way too many limitations, and, as you noted, you still need SAMBA, if you want to use modern hardware, and networking services.
FWIW, I use SAMBA, client, and server, the same way that I used NETBIOS (with or without over TCPIP), many years ago (PEER to PEER). The server is configured with the shares, and the client accesses shares. In fact, I find it easier to use than the old NETBIOS. Simple Samba Configuration Center (SSCC) makes it pretty easy to set up the server part. The client just looks to see what is available, and lets you attach to any available shares (assuming that you know the passwords etc.). You do not need (and usually don't want) a dedicated server.
Andreas Kohl:
--- Quote from: Doug Clark on March 10, 2018, 11:50:41 pm ---I would like to make a couple of corrections, observations - you all can jump in and correct me if I get it wrong.
SAMBA and IBM File and Print client, and server can coexist on the same machine. I have a SAMBA server running on a eComStation 2.2 beta machine with the networking stuff from WSeB also loaded and running. However I do not have Netbios over TCPIP installed. The SAMBA handles connections from MAC and Windows 7, Netbios handles all the OS/2 type machines.
--- End quote ---
Samba can also coexist with conventional LAN products on the same adapter. It's only a configuration issue by avoiding name space conflicts and simply using a few settings in smb.conf:
disable netbios = yes
smb ports = 445
For a server it would be a better idea to use different bindings to more physical NICs. This way also RFC NETBIOS via port 139 can be served by Samba for the particular interface. I would recommend at least 3 to 4 physical interfaces per server machine, plus one dedicated for maintenance tasks.
--- Quote ---I am laboring under the assumption that Netbios is more secure than TCP/IP or Netbios over TCP/IP because Netbios cannot be routed. However since I am also running SAMBA that advantage (if it really was an advantage) doesn't exist.
--- End quote ---
It depends on the view. It's long time ago when Samba could work over NETBIOS - it was never integrated with the official releases.
--- Quote ---You can map a remote OS2 drive via either Netbios (IBM file and print), or SAMBA, or both - even at the same time, although you will obviously have to use a different drive letter for each mapping. For example I have mapped \\server1\ddrive as q: using IBM file and Print (Netbios) and \\server1\ddrive as W: using SAMBA at the same time. (I am using a different domain name for IBM File and Print than the domain name for SAMBA - there may be another/better way but that how I have it set up.)
--- End quote ---
You're speaking here about remote directories (not remote drives). Samba cannot share remote drives. You can simply use a different Netbios name for the Samba server and keep both under the same domain.
--- Quote ---My experience is that SAMBA transfers large files faster than IBM File Print (Netbios). But smaller transfers seem to be faster with Netbios.
--- End quote ---
It largely depends on network application's usage. Samba is optimised for simple file sharing and cannot do much more.
--- Quote ---I have connected and transferred files fine over WiFi using Netbios with OS/2 machines. I also have an I/O Gear Ethernet to WiFi adapter that will not connect or tranfer with Netbios via WiFi but will with SAMBA.
--- End quote ---
802.3 and 802.11 use the same frame format - so it's also possible use Netbios for connections from wireless clients to wired servers. Such devices have to be configured for bridge or AP mode. Of course it works in real-world.
--- Quote ---Configuring the WSeB networking/server components and users is MUCH easier than setting up a SAMBA server. But I believe you can make that statement about almost all Linux based software; everything and anything non-Linux is easier to setup and use than software from the Linux world.
--- End quote ---
Samba is not Linux-based. The development started on SunOS, so it was easy to port for Linux, AIX and ULTRIX. Web based configuration via SWAT or Webmin should be usable enough. Warp Server offers a different feature set so it's not directly comparable.
I don't know why a server software (Samba) is promoted here nowadays for which the most feature complete OS/2 client software (MS OS/2 LAN Manager Client 2.2) is totally outdated.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version