Subject: [netatalk-admins] Large print jobs with papd...

From: "Les Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:55:35 +0100

I have been unable to print files greater than 256MB via PAP from Macintosh
computers running OS8 and OS8.1 to my Linux box running netatalk 1.4.2b. 
If the file is bigger than 256MB only 268,414,976 bytes get rec'd by the
Linux box and then the PAP protocol seems to breakdown in some way since no
more data gets transferred. 
Printing the same files from these Mac's to an HP 2500 CP with PAP running
on the JetDirect card in the HP works fine so I am fairly sure the problem
is not at the Mac end of things.
Does anyone know anything about this?

Regards

Les.
PS: I can provide an EtherPeek packet trace if anyone needs one.

---

From: "Les Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:41:08 +0100

----------
From: Jonathan Benson <[email-masked]>
To: Les Klein <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] Large print jobs with papd...
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 1998, 7:33 am

umm, doesn't a PAP job get temporarily spooled on to the linux box before it
goes through the filter and out to the printer, or something like that?

You might be running out of room on your /var or /tmp partitions?

Try a df and if one of those drives has about 256MB free than that MIGHT be
the
problem.

Ie. I'm just taking a wild guess here as I don't have time to investigate my
own theory.

Jonathan

---

From: "Les Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 11:02:31 +0100

Hi Jonathan
> Try a df and if one of those drives has about 256MB free than that MIGHT
be the
> Ie. I'm just taking a wild guess here as I don't have time to investigate
my
The job gets spooled into /var/spool/.... and there are 1.6GB free on that
partition.

Les.
---------------

---

From: "Les Klein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 14:55:12 +0100

Hi Wes
> 
> > I have tried to persuade them to use lower resolutions but they are not
> > happy about this. Anyway at 600 dpi an 8x10 still requires 200+MB of
data
> > which just gets through using papd. Anything bigger than 8x10 and I hit
the
> > 256MB limit again.
> 
> The latest theory (from [email-masked]) is that this is a
> binary postscript problem.  The 256M limit on your machine is your
> virtual memory.  He has eliminated the problem with a heuristic that
> causes partial lines to be written, in the event of lines over some
> maximum with good results.  I think a general solution would include
> implementing binary transmission in papd.
> 
It is great to hear that you guys have been thinking about this problem. Any
idea when you might be able to let me have an Alpha or Beta version to test
for you? I am very happy to dedicate some of my company's technical
resources to helping you if you want it.

Best Regards

Les Klein.