From: lm@marvin.jpl.oz (Luigi Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.misc,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.unix.msdos
Subject: PCNFS:what are the alternatives--SUMMARY
Date: 17 Aug 92 03:43:32 GMT
Reply-To: lm@marvin.jpl.oz (Luigi Martin)
Distribution: world
Organization: Boral Elevators, Melbourne

As promised, here are the replys that I got:

>I asked this question in comp.protocols.nfs, but got very few replies:
>Our site here at Boral Elevators, Australia, is about to expand its unix
>network to include a lot of PC clones.
>I have bought 2 sun PCNFS packages, but I am dissapointed that it uses over
>70 Kbytes of conventional memory. Most PCs here already use most of the hi
>memory made available by msdos5/drdos6, so I cannot load PCNFS into this area.
>Can anyone recommend any other software packages (not necessarily NFS) which
>use ethernet cards and use very little memory (or can be loaded into ems/xms).
>Even something that can be loaded/removed as a TSR is acceptable.

REPLYS:
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 92 10:20 GMT
From: Leo Smith <shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Small PC/TCP packages
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk

Smallest  (and does NFS) is carl beames assembler coded BWNFS
(beame@mcmaster.ca). Works too, although it suffers from Carls
irrespressible individuality.

Most polished product is PC/TCP from ftp software. Version 2.1 just
released - so probably buggy, but it does feature unloadable stack,
and last I heard they were working real hard to get the normal kernel
(c.70-100k) shoehorned into expanded memory as well as high loaded.
They do an NFS implementation but it isn't as good IMHO as Beame and
Whiteside or PC-NFS. Remote print redirect is (for example) shit.

ftp are info@ftp.com

Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 14:41:00 +0000 
From: "Alan (A.R.) Quirt" <aquirt@x400gate.bnr.ca>
Subject: PC-NFS 


We use PC-NFS 3.5c with MS-DOS 5.0 and QEMM memory manager. On my Compaq
386 I now have 625872 bytes available for a DOS program (about 100K more
than I got using MSDOS 5.0 without QEMM). That's not too bad! Even if I
leave a Telnet session running as a TSR (which I routinely do, so I can
switch between local DOS and networked Unix with a keystroke) I still have
496768 available for a DOS program. Since that is not always enough, we are
looking seriously at OS/2 2.0 for our 386 and 486 PCs. Unfortunately there
are still too many DOS programs that want to do their own memory management
(VCPI or worse, rather than DPMI interface). They will not run under OS/2,
and some will not run under QEMM.

... Al Quirt ... (aquirt@bnr.ca)
... just my opinions, of course ...

p.s. Please respond if you get this. First time I sent it without
.au it bounced. Then our experimental x.400 gateway mangled the address
thoroughly and it bounced for a different reason. Lucky this time?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 18:00:25 -0500
From: roder@mayo.EDU (Mark N. Roder)
Subject: Alternative pcnfs packages.
 
Luigi,

Try contacting diana@netmanage.com . They have a nice windows version of
pcnfs and it uses a dll which results in 6k of the coventional memory being used
and also it runs as client and server function. Not just client. I have 
been really pleased with it so far. Fairly snappy.

Paul Bleimeyer
Mayo Foundation
bleimeyp@mayo.edu

Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and do not express the feelings or
opinions of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
From: dan@cedb.dpcsys.org (Dan Busarow)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 92 9:39:28 PDT

Luigi,

Beame & Whiteside's BW-NFS may satisfy your requirements.

If you were able to use devicehigh and loadhigh you can get down to
24.8K of conventional memory.  I do not know of a way to load it
into ems/xms.  You can, however, load and unload the resident portions
of bwrpc and bwnfs (not the drivers themselves) which gets you
down to 40K when unloaded (around 70K loaded).

Dan
---
+                                                                            -
   Dan Busarow             dan@cedb.dpcsys.org              uunet!cedb!dan
   DPC SYSTEMS                Monrovia, CA                  (818) 305-5733
-                                                                            +
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 92 16:58:20 EST
From: raz@socs.uts.EDU.AU
Subject: Re: PCNFS: what are the alternatives?

Hmmm, many possibilities spring to mind. (I am working on a similar but
smaller problem at the moment.) The approaches that spring to mind are:

1) Don't run DOS applications. Do everything under UNIX. This will
require some investment in computational servers, depending upon your
number of users.
Use something like NCSA_Telnet for DOS to connect your PCs to your
UNIX machines. 

2) Install a Novell NetWare 3.x fileserver and set it up as an NFS
client. Sadly this will require almost as much workstation RAM, but
not quite. 

There are probably more appropriate solutions however. Good luck.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: imb@csource.oz.au (michael butler)
Reply-To: imb@csource.oz.au
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1992 23:48:42 +1000
Subject: PCNFS: what are the alternatives?

 * Reply to message originally in area COMP.UNIX.MISC

 LM> From: lm@marvin.jpl.oz (Luigi Martin)
 LM> Organization: Boral Elevators, Melbourne

It seems that we are chasing the same thing ..

 LM> I asked this question in comp.protocols.nfs, but got very few replies:

Seems that NFS isn't something that inspires confidence .. everyone I've
spoken to says that "it's too much of a security risk" :-(

 LM> I have bought 2 sun PCNFS packages, but I am dissapointed
 LM> that it uses over 70 Kbytes of conventional memory. Most PCs here
 LM> already use most of the hi memory made available by msdos5/drdos6 ..

Given that I have a couple of '286s without any high RAM, this is definitely
expensive :-(.

 LM> Can anyone recommend any other software packages (not
 LM> necessarily NFS) which use ethernet cards and use very little memory ..

If you have any joy at all, please mail me .. I've looked at Stan's Own Server
which is a dedicated DOS file server but nothing else seems to be about :-(

many thanks in advance,

    michael

--
 Michael Butler, Assorted C Software
 imb@asstdc.oz.au (will soon work), imb@csource.oz.au (works now)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ward D. Britton, SCO Australasia." <wardb@sco.COM>
Subject: Re: PCNFS, What are the alternitives ?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 11:18:35 +1000 (AEST)

Luigi,

I am replying in regard to your newsposting dated 8th August 1992, inquiring 
about alternatives to DOS LAN connectivity software.

There are a number of such packages available at the moment. The 
ones that I have had experience with and found to be the best 
are:
1 -     SCO Microsoft Lan Manager for UNIX
2 -     Locus PC Interface

SCO Microsoft Lan Manager for UNIX (LMU) provides all the functionality 
of an OS/2 based Lan Manager Server as well as the features and 
power of UNIX.

LMU runs on top of UNIX and provides DOS & OS/2 workstation 
access to UNIX resources such as UNIX Applications, Printers, Disks, 
Networking connectivity options, such as OSI & X.25.

LMU provides DOS Workstations with remote command execution, 
printer re-direction and distributed filesystem access from the 
UNIx server.

The LMU Dos client can be configured in either a Basic 
installation or an Enhanced Installation. Both of these are fully 
supported under Microsoft Windows 3.x.

The BASIC Workstation configuration uses 72k of conventional 
memory plus around 20k for the NDIS LAN Adapter Driver.

A neat feature of LMU is that you are supplied the DOS client 
FREE. This means that you only pay for the Server software and 
the amount of users that you wish to provide simultaneous server 
access for.

Out of the two products, I have found this one the most fully 
featured and well rounded.

        
Locus PC Interface (PCI) provides DOS Workstations with access to UNIX 
based applications, printers and disks. A vtXXX terminal emulation 
package called EM2 is supplied with the product and can be used 
to login to UNIX applications and connect to other UNIX network 
hosts.

PCI also does printer re-direction on the Workstation to allow 
DOS print jobs to appear on a UNIX printer, in a similar fashion 
to LMU.

PCI does support distrubuted filesystems from the UNIX Server as 
well as remote command execution.

PCI is not directly supported by Microsoft Windows 3.x, but an 
OEM diskette is available to provide this.

One of the benefits of PCI is that it uses less than 64k of 
conventional memory on the DOS Workstation.


Both of these products are fully supported under SCO Open 
Desktop 2.0.
In fact, Open Desktop provides the PC Interface Server free with 
each copy of Open Desktop sold.

For more information on LAN connectivity & UNIX solutions, please 
feel free to contact me or your local SCO supplier.

Best Regards,

wardb++

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ward D. Britton
Developer Relations & Systems Engineering   Phone:  +61(2) 876-8444
SCO Australia/New Zealand                   Fax:    +61(2) 876-8923
                            Email: wardb@sco.COM or uunet!sco!wardb
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 15:23:59 -0400
From: richard@eclipse.sheridanc.on.ca (Richard Baird)
Subject: re: PCNFS: what are the alternatives?
Reply-To: richard.baird@sheridanc.on.ca

Luigi:

   I have a couple of hundred PC's using the BWNFS package from 
Beame & Whiteside. it seems to work fairly well. I normally have
540-600K free conventional memory with a memory manager. All the
B&W stuff can load hi.

You can contact them at (416) 765-0822 for more info.

best of luck

Richard

p.s. I'm always interested in what other people come up with 
     to solve this problem.
---
|Richard Baird              |e-mail:  richard.baird@sheridanc.on.ca           |
|Computing & Communications |phone: (416) 845-9430 x449  #include <disclaim.h>|
|Sheridan College, Oakville,|                                                 |
|Ont. Canada                |  Sorry, no witty comments this week!            |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:    Wed, 12 Aug 1992 8:39:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: RBEBB@USC.PPPL.GOV
Subject: RE:  PCNFS: what are the alternatives?

Luigi, please summarize or send copy of responses.  Thanks, Russ
		<rbebb@usc.pppl.gov>
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you have it. Personnally, I avoid windows like the plague, so
BWNFS & PC/TCP will require some investigation.

As for the other solutions:
I am just a systems administrator for a poor (ahem, I mean wonderful) elevator
company; so I cannot force people to change the way they use their PC's. I try
to provide a simple, effective, unobtrusive, & cheap solution to others.
This generally means catering to the lowest common denominator, so if someone
wants to run windows, SCO unix, etc., then it is no longer my direct problem.

Thank you to all who responded.

I will post any updates in I receive any late replies.

I must also apoligise for the lateness of this summary, but for various
reasons, I could not do it any sooner.

>>>Luigi Martin<<<

-- 
phone: +61 03 5843311       | Boral Elevators, R&D Department |||||||||||
FAX: +61 03 5848978         | 45 Wangara Road, Cheltenham,    ||  DoD  ||
UseNet: lm@marvin.jpl.oz.au | Victoria, 3192, Australia       || #0987 ||
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AMIGA COMPUTERS : THE BEST <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< |||||||||||