cyb97

1st: all computers doesn't have to be in the same workgroup, the difference is that everbody have to go the long way by browsing and broadcast for workgroups before getting to the right group. 2nd: You probably doesn't to allow the guest login again. SMB is a slow protocol for filesharing, if you have decided on using SMB you probably want to make accounts for those you want to allow access.. SMB filesharing does slow you computer down a lot on a big network with many users. FTP is a better choice, but you said IPX right? (who uses IPX these days?) -- cyb97

Checking memory, for errors or amount?

Unless you want to hide your FTP from your internal network it doesn't matter... warFTPd is setup standard (for your convenience) to answer on all nics...

yep... or at least I used to... I've moved the intern DNS to another machine, so the dialup only got a caching DNS (not really a dns then I would say) for the routing service....

I've set up w2k servers (advanced) as PDC (and DNS since I use it). It doesn't matter if you install a DNS server on your internet connected machine.... There are many ways to make the DNS server not talk to the internet... and even if you don't unbind your dialup interface, it doesn't matter because no other DNS' are talking to yours, so your records won't be thrown out on the net... and I've installed both PDC and AD without any trouble... the onlything that gave me trouble was the telnet service and the remote login service... neither of those was functioning correctly... but this was way back beta 3, I think....

Quote: Originally posted by Seldzar on 12-08-1999 06:58 PM WHich port? Theres lots of them. WarFTPd uses port 21 (of course) and it uses RPC, but that shouldn't matter for the RPC ports are way out in the portlist... Last time I installed warFTPd on a server, it had serv-u (or some other ****, can remember) running and that give us any error at all... this was on NT Server (SBS4.5) and we just set up the server correctly and then we shut down the crap server and up with the good one... about 30 secs. of down time....

Don't know what your issue with serv-u is but it has NEVER crashed on me in win2k nor has it ever had a problem of any kind and it logs everything just fine. Not to mention the fact that it's ease of use and setup is by far more superior than WarFTP. Granted WarFTP is truely kick ass but when it takes me longer to learn the layout and functionality of a FTP server than it takes for me to completely setup servu then there is a problem. WarFTP is jsut too confusing and I know a thing or two about setting up an FTP. I can agree on the fact that WarFTP is a little harder to learn, but it's not that hard people. Serv-u won't handle logins with a username longer than 128*3(I think it was that little) that would make the server crash, ie the logging system would go down with it. WarFTP can log to diffrent ODBC datasources, SQL and DAO. And you can remote administer it, which is the best functionallity with WarFTP, it's so easy administrated... Let me give you a scenario (I've tried this myself) where Serv-u wouldn't work much at all... Computer-party... 4500~5000 clients, all switched 10MBit with a shared 25Mbit ATM to the internet, we sat up an ftpserver on a dual 333MHz pentium-II, 384MB ECC WinNT (3com card) all SCSI-Server... This thing served constantly for 5 days w/o reboot (and that's good to be NT Server). The thing served at about 96% of theoretical linespeed. WarFTP served the masses with about 5-6% cpuload (with constantly people logging in and out via both shared public and private accounts). We couldn't compile stats out of the textlogfiles because they we're constantly written to, so we had to use SQL... The best thing was that we was even able to burn cds while serving... (the hdd activity lights flickered like strobes)... Can anybody tell me another daemon that will do this...

I seriously hope that nobody uses Serv-u (no serv-u bashing here, this is serious) for anything they want to run stable and fast. Serv-u has one of the lowest uptime numbers I've seen, this is because it's so full of buffer-overflows and memoryleaks, not to mention the logging (more the lack of), and user database. Everybody who wants to run their own server, i recommend that you check out warftpd from JGAA's freeware (yes it's freeware, and the best server out for win32). Get it free at www.jgaa.com, and talk to me if you have trouble... -- cyb97 / cyb97@noxtension.com Core Member of noXtension

Anybody with close microsoft relations here who can answer me why NT doesn't close down the ddhelper thread even though you close down the DX program? (this is not just ddhelper, loads of internal/semi-internal processes do this)

When you said cleaning out the registry, did you go to where you found the mirabilis sub-folder or did you search for icq related things? A lot of programs today have tendencies to leave their information scattered around in the registry.

SP6 doesn't contain any dx upgrades (dp is a part of dx)... so you have to install from the AOE, thought I'd just mention this is somebody else tries to install SP6 instead of dp6.1...

I didn't experience any problems with DX5 on my computer... but then again I don't play many games... But one should believe that DX5 should be compatible with DX3.. but then again we're talking microsoft here...

Quote: Yes! Multiprocessing does really increase your performance. As long as certain conditions are met. 1)OS must be multiprocessor capable 2)The application you work with uses the power of additional CPU. True true... but the increase you would see is not even near 80%... you must remember that the 2 CPU's share memory and other i/o buses.... Photoshop would definatly sport from 2 cpu's since it can perform multiple calculations... I recommend going for 2 cpu's... or at least go for a good dual mainboard with one good processor, and then save for the next one.... And as for the 10K rpm disks... you would benefit from them... (if you can afford it you should use a simple RAID solution). Lower access-time, means less waiting for writing and reading operations, which is alpha-omega when talking about paging and swapping... [This message has been edited by cyb97 (edited 22 November 1999).]

To you explain more about the idle-cycling problems NT has with SMP, haven't heard about it before... (neither have I noticed anything on SMP machines(only dual though)).

This win98 machine you tested it on, it isn't the machine the program was developed on? If it is, then you probably forgot to register the dll when you copied the program. regsvr32 blah.dll from the commandline should fix this... Try that...