Help! I have computers coming out of my ears!

[The Heretic]

One of the benes of working for a company that has been downsized is that sometimes they sell off excess computer equipment.

I now have the following computer equipment that I need to organize into a network:

My main machine; a 1 gHz dual CPU with 1 gb of RAM, 40 gb drive, CD-RW, DVD, dual monitor card, four USB ports, a 10/100 Ethernet card - running W2K.

A 300 mHz G3 PowerMac currently running 9.2.2 (but soon to run OSX), 128MB RAM, a 10/100 Ethernet card and the built in Ethernet 10 mbps port.

A 333 mHz Wintel laptop with docking station and 10/100 Ethernet.

A SCSI scanner, a parallel port printer, a digicam.

I am going to be replacing my satellite internet access with cable (cheaper, faster, better). I want to share this access amongst my computers and with Lost Cause (probably via Ethernet).

I have limited room, so I want all of these to share the same desk, the same monitors (I want to get a second monitor for both the W2K and OSX machine), the same keyboard (a MS natural), the same mouse (Logitech optical), and have the peripherals available to all computers.

I also want run Linux somewhere, but I don't really want yet another computer to do that. I want to be able to develop and test Linux server side projects (for Apache/Tomcat/etc.) locally before deploying. Yes I know that Darwin is under OSX - I do devo work on OSX, but I want to be able to put Linux on my resume and many recruiters don't know that Darwin/Unix is close enough.

So I am thinking some kind of ethernet router to share the internet cable access and hook all of these up together. I need to be able to develop on the three main OSes; Windoze, Linux and OSX. I need to have internet access be available to any machine, including for Lost Cause, without a particular machine having to be left on for that access.

So..., sysadmins, what configuration would you suggest? Some kind of P2P network with nothing running as a server?

I am a programmer, not a network admin so I am not sure how best to do this.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest]

 

[Master Control]

Get a router with a hub attached to it. Less desk space and you can shut down any machines at any time without affecting the others..

I have the Linksys wireless router with 4 port hub.

 

[The Heretic]

Get a router with a hub attached to it. Less desk space and you can shut down any machines at any time without affecting the others..

I have the Linksys wireless router with 4 port hub.

So you are suggesting something that is more or less a P2P network? Is there a preferred way to connect the Windoze and Mac to the router? Just plug them in? Do I need to setup ICS?

How do I provide access for my scanner to both windoze and Mac? The printer?

How do I setup dual monitors with a KVM switch?

 

[Master Control]

So you are suggesting something that is more or less a P2P network? Is there a preferred way to connect the Windoze and Mac to the router? Just plug them in? Do I need to setup ICS?

How do I provide access for my scanner to both windoze and Mac? The printer?

How do I setup dual monitors with a KVM switch?

Not sure about the scanner.

I do know that once the router/hub is fully set up (Main Pc will need to have the configuration software installed on it, but once set up Pc does not ned to run allways), Just connect the Mac and others to the hub with wireless cards or cable and theortically they should allways be able to connect to the Internet without the need of any others to be on.
I have not set this up with a mac before so not sure
Dual montors and a KVM switch sound right.

 

[The Heretic]

Dual montors and a KVM switch sound right.

I am thinking I will need one three or four way KVM switch, and another video switch for the second monitor. I haven't checked them out in detail yet, but I don't recall ever seeing a KVM switch that handles dual monitors.

 

[Master Control]

Your right. i dont think KVM switches handle dual monitors. Ill check on that and get back to you

 

[sterlingclay]

And then there's terminal services, so you don't even need to plug devices into them other computers. Install a server where you plan on doing most of your work (probably the dual Intel) with terminal services, and the client on each machine. There are several terminal service apps out there so find one that best suits your needs. This eliminates all that extra wiring under your desk.

Get a router so you and LC can have separate IP addy's.

 

[The Heretic]

And then there's terminal services, so you don't even need to plug devices into them other computers. Install a server where you plan on doing most of your work (probably the dual Intel) with terminal services, and the client on each machine. There are several terminal service apps out there so find one that best suits your needs. This eliminates all that extra wiring under your desk.

You mean something like X-Windows? Or something like PC-Anywhere? I don't know how well those work between a PC and a Mac, even a Mac running OSX, and how well they would work with applications.

I know there are apps out there to give access to the resources and apps on like platforms that are networked together - for instance my IT department can remotely log on to my PC and run apps from it, but that is one Windows comp controlling another windows comp - not a Wintel machine controlling a Mac or Linux machine.

 

[sterlingclay]

Admittedly Windows is my main course but I know you can run anything from anywhere and domains make it easier. XP has a package that let's you log onto any Windows machine in the domain and run it as an administrator. I've heard of complete application interaction between Mac and Windows, as if you were sitting at said machine, but I can't remember the program off hand.

Question: How much filesharing do you expect with LC?

If it's a lot, I suggest moving to a domain and using a fileserver.

 

[The Heretic]

Admittedly Windows is my main course but I know you can run anything from anywhere and domains make it easier. XP has a package that let's you log onto any Windows machine in the domain and run it as an administrator. I've heard of complete application interaction between Mac and Windows, as if you were sitting at said machine, but I can't remember the program off hand.

Well if you (or anyone) remembers or comes across the equivalent of a KVM switch that will let me use my single keyboard, mouse and two monitors with two or more dual monitor and single monitor computers that run Windows NT (W2K or later), Linux and OSX, then please let me know what they are and where I can find them. I don't want something that is so quirky and unstable that I have to jump through hoops to keep it working; remember I do development so I will be using compilers and debuggers - and those are notoriously incompatible with things such as emulators, remote access, etc.

Question: How much filesharing do you expect with LC?

If it's a lot, I suggest moving to a domain and using a fileserver.

None really - I am just going to share internet access with him; he has a dialup account right now and with a cable modem I think we will have enough bandwidth to share. I don't want to have to leave any of my computers on for him to be able to access the net. I figure I can either share with him via wireless or just run some CAT5 cable from a router through the common attic between our residences.

 

[sterlingclay]

KVM would certainly be easier to set up, I just thought I'd throw in a less wired solution. Going the remote desktop method however, I wonder if you could get the dual monitor support on the remote machine you log onto to. Follow me?

I'll have a look around for remote solutions. And get LC to obtain an IP automatically if you get a router so he'll have his own IP and full cable bandwidth.

 

[Guru]

One of the benes of working for a company that has been downsized is that sometimes they sell off excess computer equipment.

<snip>

So I am thinking some kind of ethernet router to share the internet cable access and hook all of these up together. I need to be able to develop on the three main OSes; Windoze, Linux and OSX. I need to have internet access be available to any machine, including for Lost Cause, without a particular machine having to be left on for that access.

So..., sysadmins, what configuration would you suggest? Some kind of P2P network with nothing running as a server?

I am a programmer, not a network admin so I am not sure how best to do this.

Thanks in advance.

NetGear makes a decent DSL/Cable router (I have one with a wireless access point). The administration is simple, browser (HTML) based.

Instead of a KVM switch (cables are $40 per PC) use VNC (Virtual Network Computing - cross-platform, open source). If you're worried about a hacker getting into it from outside (a possibility) make sure you use a non-hackable password.

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Re: Help! I have computers coming out of my ears!

Instead of a KVM switch (cables are $40 per PC) use VNC (Virtual Network Computing - cross-platform, open source). If you're worried about a hacker getting into it from outside (a possibility) make sure you use a non-hackable password.

Thanks. I am looking into VNC - it is interesting. I think as long as I ran it behind a firewall and set it up correctly I wouldn't have any security concerns, but I need to learn more about it. My main concern would be performance and working with a virtual desktop as is common with multiple monitor setups.

In my experience with such remote access is that performance, reliability and robustness is noticeably less than with real world setups - but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Guru]

Block ports 5800 and 5900 at your firewall then. At my employer, we use VNC routinely to maintain our servers. It's clunky at times, but I can use VPN from home to work on servers. Without VNC, I'd be driving to work a lot more frequently.

 

[Guru]

Oh, and for a Firewall, check out SmoothWall, which is a free firewall based on Linux. You can download the CD Image. Use an old Pentium 200 box as your firewall, and you're set! (I have no direct experience with this. I looked into it, but never implemented it.)

 

[Eumenides]

Does anybody else drool uncontrollably when Heretic talks computers?

 

[The Heretic]

Does anybody else drool uncontrollably when Heretic talks computers?

Yeah - me.

 

[The Heretic]

Block ports 5800 and 5900 at your firewall then. At my employer, we use VNC routinely to maintain our servers. It's clunky at times, but I can use VPN from home to work on servers. Without VNC, I'd be driving to work a lot more frequently.

Clunky how?

Remember, I am not talking about just casual access here, I want to be able to use these computers seamlessly (once setup). I will be running all kinds of apps, from image manipulation to IDEs to web server apps.

 

[Guru]

Clunky how?

Remember, I am not talking about just casual access here, I want to be able to use these computers seamlessly (once setup). I will be running all kinds of apps, from image manipulation to IDEs to web server apps.

You should set it up and try it. Some apps, notably IE, don't seem to refresh the screen as well as other (more well-behaved) apps. I'm not sure I'd use it for development over my DSL connection, but in a local network, it works pretty well.

All I can say is you should try it *before* you spend $500 on a KVM switch and cabling.

 

[The Heretic]

Okay, I looked into VNC and it is interesting, but I can see a number of problems for my application - and these apply to most any software remote access type solution (VNC, Timbuktu, etc.):

1) When starting up a system you basically are in the dark until the remote access service is up and going. This might not be a problem with network servers, et. al., but when mucking around with personal computers, rebooting them because you installed a driver or because something crashed (an all too common occurance when debugging something - even with protected memory) - it is rather inconvenient. In such a case I might need to disconnect my display from my main machine and connect it up to the "remote" machine. OSX is still pretty clunky in this regard, especially when running or debugging something in the Classic environment (which hopefully won't be necessary for too much longer).

2) Reading through the troubleshooting sections of the FAQ for VNC leads me to believe that mucking about in either the Cmd window of Windoze or the term window of OSX might be a problem.

These seem like a good solution for remote access, but where there is actual physical access I don't think they are a substitute for something like a KVM. KVMs are fairly spendy, but in general they are cheaper than buying a separate hi-res large display for every machine

 

[Byron In Exile]

Hi Heretic,

I think you'll want a separate machine to run Linux on, unless you're going to set one up as a dual-boot so it runs one or the other. Trying to run one OS under another is probably more trouble than it's worth.

If you do that, there are two ways to set up your network. You can put two NIC cards in the Linux machine and make it do the Network Address Translation, so it acts as a gateway to the Internet. One NIC would connect to your modem and one to the LAN hub. This would be a fun and educational project, but the Linux box would have to be on to access the Internet, so maybe this isn't the way you want to go.

A router would be less trouble and consume less power, and do the same thing, but your situation sounds like you'll need more than four ports. I've seen five and eight-port models. Netgear and Linksys are good. The Linksys routers require you to talk to them with a web browser. Netgear used to be configurable via Telnet, but I don't know if they still are (it seems they've changed their product line recently). The router (or your Linux machine in the first case) will allow you to direct incoming requests for particular ports to machines you specify, or block them; or you can set a single machine to have complete exposure to the Internet.

Will you be wanting to run a web server for LAN use only, or one that's accessible from the Internet?

 

[Guru]

Okay, I looked into VNC and it is interesting, but I can see a number of problems for my application - and these apply to most any software remote access type solution (VNC, Timbuktu, etc.):

1) When starting up a system you basically are in the dark until the remote access service is up and going. This might not be a problem with network servers, et. al., but when mucking around with personal computers, rebooting them because you installed a driver or because something crashed (an all too common occurance when debugging something - even with protected memory) - it is rather inconvenient. In such a case I might need to disconnect my display from my main machine and connect it up to the "remote" machine. OSX is still pretty clunky in this regard, especially when running or debugging something in the Classic environment (which hopefully won't be necessary for too much longer).

2) Reading through the troubleshooting sections of the FAQ for VNC leads me to believe that mucking about in either the Cmd window of Windoze or the term window of OSX might be a problem.

These seem like a good solution for remote access, but where there is actual physical access I don't think they are a substitute for something like a KVM. KVMs are fairly spendy, but in general they are cheaper than buying a separate hi-res large display for every machine

KVMs are really the best solution, but I have learned a lot about VNC. PM me if you want some specific tips about how to use it for real applications.

 

[sterlingclay]

Re: Re: Re: Help! I have computers coming out of my ears!

Thanks. I am looking into VNC - it is interesting. I think as long as I ran it behind a firewall and set it up correctly I wouldn't have any security concerns, but I need to learn more about it. My main concern would be performance and working with a virtual desktop as is common with multiple monitor setups.

In my experience with such remote access is that performance, reliability and robustness is noticeably less than with real world setups - but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

Reliability and robustness will perform as well as your LAN speeds allow. Remote access in the home sense would be fun to play around with but reading more into your situation, it sounds like you should go with the kvm and a router or a switch. Wireless is still pretty slow compared to cat5.

 

[The Heretic]

Hi Heretic,

I think you'll want a separate machine to run Linux on, unless you're going to set one up as a dual-boot so it runs one or the other. Trying to run one OS under another is probably more trouble than it's worth.

Agreed - especially when doing development, which tends to stress systems to the point of breaking. Virtual Machines are cool, but not always optimum in this regard.

If you do that, there are two ways to set up your network. You can put two NIC cards in the Linux machine and make it do the Network Address Translation, so it acts as a gateway to the Internet. One NIC would connect to your modem and one to the LAN hub. This would be a fun and educational project, but the Linux box would have to be on to access the Internet, so maybe this isn't the way you want to go.

No it isn't. I don't want to leave any of my machines on so that LC can have 'net access. I sometimes am gone on a bike trip for a week or two, and we have different schedules, plus I reboot machines all the time because I need to reset them to get something working again (write code, test code, crash machine, reboot, repeat and rinse). Plus, if I have to switch from Windows to Linux, I would probably have to reboot. I am thinking that I will make my main desktop dual boot.

At one time I was thinking of doing something along the lines of a gateway machine because my satellite net access required a Windows machine to be hooked up to the modem, but with a cable modem I can use anything, including a router. Or at least that is my impression.

A router would be less trouble and consume less power, and do the same thing, but your situation sounds like you'll need more than four ports. I've seen five and eight-port models. Netgear and Linksys are good. The Linksys routers require you to talk to them with a web browser. Netgear used to be configurable via Telnet, but I don't know if they still are (it seems they've changed their product line recently). The router (or your Linux machine in the first case) will allow you to direct incoming requests for particular ports to machines you specify, or block them; or you can set a single machine to have complete exposure to the Internet.

I would need a router anyway since I will need to give simultaneous 'net access to more than two machines - at least three to four at a time.

Will you be wanting to run a web server for LAN use only, or one that's accessible from the Internet?

For LAN access only. This would be for development and testing before deployment. I thought about actually serving a website from my local machine, but while it would be nice to have physical access and unlimited hardware resources, a hosted site would have better bandwidth, probably better uptime and I wouldn't have to leave a machine on all the time.