Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.0a18.2 on Solaris 2.6x86 compiled! - causes panic

From: Bob Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 23:15:14 -0700 (PDT)

Michael,

> Previously...
> >[snip]
> >I very much need to adapt netatalk to a Solaris 2.6x86 system to replace
> >the CAP/Native ethertalk solution which is not performing well.
> 
> The afp/tcp patches for pl199 would also provide much improved
> performance in CAP, though only for ASIP-capable clients, FWIW.
> 

Yes, I have installed those and we have seen a performance improvement
however we are dealing with several Mac systems, some still running
MacOS 7.5. We are determining whether we can install Appleshare v1.34
from MacOS8.1 into MacOS 7.5 systems and get ASIP support as well as
support for >2GB volumes. CAP/pl199+afp/tcp patches support large
volumes but returns erroneous volume sizes for old Appleshare clients.
I haven't been able to figure out an elegant fix that will support both
older Appleshare clients and later Appleshare v1.34 clients. I have
confirmed that Appleshare v1.34 will work properly under MacOS 8.0 with
>2GB volume sizes.

> >Does anyone have any ideas as to what gcc compilation options should be
> >used to compile a driver for Solaris x86? Or does anyone know if the
> >driver requires modification to operate under Solaris x86?
> 
> Haven't tried the x86 version, but 2.6 on Sparc is working well for
> me. Only you, as Wes mentioned, have the driver from 1.4b2 if you're
> using netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.0a18.2, which isn't terribly stable. If you
> want ASIP support, try adrian's pre-asun2.1.0-10a patches. He fixed a
> few things that are Solaris-hostile in 2.0a18.2, including
> incorporating the updated STREAMS module Wes wrote and put in
> netatalk-971027.
> 

Should I start with netatalk-1.4b2 and then add pre-asun2.1.0-10a
patches?  Or do the pre-asun2.1.0-10a patches go on top of
netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.0a18.2?

As for stability of netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.0a18.2 on Solaris 2.5.1 sparc
I haven't had any problems and it has been running for the last 3 days
with 5 clients. However, it is compiled for PHASE1 only. Perhaps the
PHASE2 code is more problematic?

---
Bob