Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Discussion about old PC hardware.

Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-27 @ 14:21

I'm looking for a relatively painless way to get a mapped drive letter on my Tandy box, WITHOUT the ~250kb overhead of the Microsoft lan manager client.

The caveat is that I'd like to run the server-side on modern hardware, ideally a raspberry pi or windows server. Serial port is the most likely interface.

Googling "interlnk dosbox" has a lot of old questions that leave me pretty skeptical that dosbox will support interlnk.

A google search for dosemu again leaves me a little pessimistic about whether it'll work properly. I can't find a single "I got it to work" comment anywhere.

Has anyone tried either of those options? What about Virtualbox, with a host-mapped serial port? Are there other alternatives?
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby jade_angel » 2017-3-27 @ 15:03

Virtualbox with a host-mapped serial port should work, yes. I'm surprised nobody's managed to kluge together an INTERSVR emulator for Unix as yet.
Wintendo: Core i3-6100 | GTX 960
Linux Box: Core i5-4760K | GTX 550 Ti
98/2000 Box (Broken): K6-III+/500 | G400 MAX
PCI DOS Box: 5x86/133 | S3 Trio64/V2 PCI
VLB DOS box: 486DX4/100 | Cirrus GD5428 2MB
User avatar
jade_angel
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 2017-1-03 @ 00:10
Location: Virginia

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-27 @ 15:07

I actually just stumbled across some old Interlnk-style software called "DOS RIFS."

Linking to that post rather than discussing in two seperate threads:

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53129

Looks much more advanced than Interlnk, and source code is available.
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby Predator99 » 2017-3-27 @ 15:25

I am using the XFS client to connect to my NAS via NFS. Consumes also some memory, but not as much as MSLM.
Predator99
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 2016-12-28 @ 19:09

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-27 @ 15:32

Predator99 wrote:I am using the XFS client to connect to my NAS via NFS. Consumes also some memory, but not as much as MSLM.


That's very interesting, NFS client for DOS. Works over a packet driver?

Any idea how much memory that takes up?
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-28 @ 00:00

Predator99 wrote:I am using the XFS client to connect to my NAS via NFS. Consumes also some memory, but not as much as MSLM.


I can't get this to work. It seems to require a PCNFSD daemon on my box and I can't find that for Debian. Compiling from source gives many errors.
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby jade_angel » 2017-3-28 @ 00:29

No joy with standard Unix NFSv2 using /etc/exports? You may have to make sure you're using version 2, though version 3 should work. They might be defaulting to v4 now, which could cause some issues.
Wintendo: Core i3-6100 | GTX 960
Linux Box: Core i5-4760K | GTX 550 Ti
98/2000 Box (Broken): K6-III+/500 | G400 MAX
PCI DOS Box: 5x86/133 | S3 Trio64/V2 PCI
VLB DOS box: 486DX4/100 | Cirrus GD5428 2MB
User avatar
jade_angel
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 2017-1-03 @ 00:10
Location: Virginia

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-28 @ 00:58

Code: Select all
root@dosserv:~/pcnfsd/pcnfsd-2.0.orig# rpcinfo -p localhost
   program vers proto   port  service
    100000    4   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    3   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    2   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    4   udp    111  portmapper
    100000    3   udp    111  portmapper
    100000    2   udp    111  portmapper
    100024    1   udp  42915  status
    100024    1   tcp  42793  status
    100003    2   tcp   2049  nfs
    100003    3   tcp   2049  nfs
    100003    4   tcp   2049  nfs
    100227    2   tcp   2049
    100227    3   tcp   2049
    100003    2   udp   2049  nfs
    100003    3   udp   2049  nfs
    100003    4   udp   2049  nfs
    100227    2   udp   2049
    100227    3   udp   2049
    100021    1   udp  45755  nlockmgr
    100021    3   udp  45755  nlockmgr


Looks like version 2/3 is enabled? THe client complains about RPC server unavailable, I believe.
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby jade_angel » 2017-3-28 @ 01:32

Huh. Does "showmount -e localhost" show anything useful?

ETA: I have some interest in getting this working, too, since SSH2DOS doesn't seem to want to talk to newer sshd like my Debian and Gentoo boxen have, and I don't *really* wanna keep that noisy old SPARC running just for this.
Wintendo: Core i3-6100 | GTX 960
Linux Box: Core i5-4760K | GTX 550 Ti
98/2000 Box (Broken): K6-III+/500 | G400 MAX
PCI DOS Box: 5x86/133 | S3 Trio64/V2 PCI
VLB DOS box: 486DX4/100 | Cirrus GD5428 2MB
User avatar
jade_angel
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 2017-1-03 @ 00:10
Location: Virginia

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-28 @ 01:42

jade_angel wrote:Huh. Does "showmount -e localhost" show anything useful?

ETA: I have some interest in getting this working, too, since SSH2DOS doesn't seem to want to talk to newer sshd like my Debian and Gentoo boxen have, and I don't *really* wanna keep that noisy old SPARC running just for this.


/home/msdos 192.168.5.0/24

Right now I'm just using plain old unencrypted telnet and FTP for file transfer and whatnot. I created a crappy little VM I'm using as a staging server, beats the hell out of swapping floppies.

I think SSH2DOS on a 6mhz 286 is asking a little too much.
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby Predator99 » 2017-3-28 @ 06:04

keenerb wrote:
Predator99 wrote:I am using the XFS client to connect to my NAS via NFS. Consumes also some memory, but not as much as MSLM.


I can't get this to work. It seems to require a PCNFSD daemon on my box and I can't find that for Debian. Compiling from source gives many errors.


In my autoexec.bat I have
nwpd 0x60 9 0x300
winpkt 0x60
xfskrnl 0x60
xfstool init AT
xfstool mount e: qnap:/AT286

On the server side there is the QNAP nfs daemon without any modification.

Memory consumption

Detaillierte šbersicht des konventionellen Speichers:

Segment Insgesamt Name Typ
------- ---------------- ---------- -------------------------
00000 1.039 (1K) Interrupt-Vektor
00040 271 (0K) ROM-šbertragungsbereich
00050 527 (1K) DOS-šbertragungsbereich
00070 2.752 (3K) IO Systemdaten
CON System-Ger„tetreiber
AUX System-Ger„tetreiber
PRN System-Ger„tetreiber
CLOCK$ System-Ger„tetreiber
A: - D: System-Ger„tetreiber
COM1 System-Ger„tetreiber
LPT1 System-Ger„tetreiber
LPT2 System-Ger„tetreiber
LPT3 System-Ger„tetreiber
COM2 System-Ger„tetreiber
COM3 System-Ger„tetreiber
COM4 System-Ger„tetreiber
0011C 5.104 (5K) MSDOS Systemdaten
0025B 35.024 (34K) IO Systemdaten
23.920 (23K) MSCD000 Instal. Ger„t=SLCDB
192 (0K) FILES=8
256 (0K) FCBS=4
7.984 (8K) BUFFERS=15
704 (1K) LASTDRIVE=H
1.856 (2K) STACKS=9,128
00AE8 144 (0K) MEM Umgebung
00AF1 16 (0K) MSDOS -- Frei --
00AF2 37.760 (37K) MSDOS Systemprogramm
0142A 4.720 (5K) COMMAND Programm
01551 272 (0K) COMMAND Umgebung
01562 96 (0K) MSDOS -- Frei --
01568 27.984 (27K) MSCDEX Programm
01C3D 128 (0K) MSDOS -- Frei --
01C45 4.880 (5K) NWPD Programm
01D76 2.640 (3K) WINPKT Programm

01E1B 144 (0K) MSDOS -- Frei --
01E24 63.104 (62K) XFSKRNL Programm
02D8C 6.944 (7K) KEYB Programm
02F3E 88.992 (87K) MEM Programm
044F8 372.864 (364K) MSDOS -- Frei --

Speicher-Zusammenfassung:

Speichertyp Insgesamt = Verwendet + Frei
----------------- --------- --------- ---------
Konventioneller 655.360 193.120 462.240
Hoher 0 0 0
Reserviert 0 0 0
Erweiterung (XMS) 393.216 393.216 0
----------------- --------- --------- ---------
Insg. Speicher 1.048.576 586.336 462.240

Insg. unter 1 MB 655.360 193.120 462.240

Verfgbarer Speicher bei Int 15h 393.216 (384K)
Maximale Gr”áe fr ausfhrbares Programm 461.840 (451K)
GrӇter freier Block im hohen Speicherblock 0 (0K)
Last edited by Predator99 on 2017-3-29 @ 05:31, edited 1 time in total.
Predator99
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 2016-12-28 @ 19:09

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby jade_angel » 2017-3-28 @ 12:29

keenerb wrote:
jade_angel wrote:Huh. Does "showmount -e localhost" show anything useful?

ETA: I have some interest in getting this working, too, since SSH2DOS doesn't seem to want to talk to newer sshd like my Debian and Gentoo boxen have, and I don't *really* wanna keep that noisy old SPARC running just for this.


/home/msdos 192.168.5.0/24

Right now I'm just using plain old unencrypted telnet and FTP for file transfer and whatnot. I created a crappy little VM I'm using as a staging server, beats the hell out of swapping floppies.

I think SSH2DOS on a 6mhz 286 is asking a little too much.


That does make sense. Technically there is a version that works on 8086 machines, but I can't imagine very well, considering that it's noticeably laggy even on a 486DX4 (even using things like RC4).

Sure does beat floppies, though. Even toasting CDs gets a little tedious.
Wintendo: Core i3-6100 | GTX 960
Linux Box: Core i5-4760K | GTX 550 Ti
98/2000 Box (Broken): K6-III+/500 | G400 MAX
PCI DOS Box: 5x86/133 | S3 Trio64/V2 PCI
VLB DOS box: 486DX4/100 | Cirrus GD5428 2MB
User avatar
jade_angel
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 2017-1-03 @ 00:10
Location: Virginia

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-28 @ 12:56

Predator99 wrote:
keenerb wrote:
Predator99 wrote:I am using the XFS client to connect to my NAS via NFS. Consumes also some memory, but not as much as MSLM.


I can't get this to work. It seems to require a PCNFSD daemon on my box and I can't find that for Debian. Compiling from source gives many errors.


In my autoexec.bat I have
nwpd 0x60 9 0x300
winpkt 0x60
xfskrnl 0x60
xfstool init AT
mount e: qnap:/AT286


Looks good. My xfs.bat has a lot of unnecessary cruft it seems. xfskrnl itself looks like it might even fit into my 64kb UMB...
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-29 @ 00:42

Allrighty, looks like Predator99 has the right idea.

Those commands worked-ish for me; I had to add my machine name to the HOSTS file, and use that machine name instead of AT in the xfstool init.

Mount, for me, was actually "xfstool mount". I had to set the NFS server-side folder permissions to CHMOD 777, the PCNFSD daemon is the auth daemon for DOS nfs clients; without a functioning DOS auth server you're basically anonymous to the NFS server.

It's workign just fine now.
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby Predator99 » 2017-3-29 @ 05:29

Nice to hear it works! Is your memory consumption comparable?

Yes of course, ""xfstool mount"", deleted one word too much...

The only issue I have is with Windows-long filenames and 8+3 in DOS. Even when writing a file with windows in the shared folder which meets 8+3 the name is wrong when looking at the file under dos. Maybe a nfs server configuration switch...didnt care about this seriously yet.
Intermediate solution is to zip the files and extract them again under DOS...
Predator99
Member
 
Posts: 325
Joined: 2016-12-28 @ 19:09

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-3-29 @ 09:43

Same here, names are a mess.

Xfskrnl cannot be loaded high apparently, but comparable memory usage to what you are seeing.
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-4-02 @ 01:41

Apparantly there's this:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/etherdfs/files/

7k DOS client, linux server, can be loaded high.

Updated regularly and recently.

Needs packet driver only.

I'm testing it out shortly...
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby Malvineous » 2017-4-02 @ 09:25

Have you investigated XTIDE? If you have a network card or some other way to get the ROM onto your system then it won't take up any extra memory (will run from ROM sitting in upper memory) and it has an option to boot a virtual disk over a serial port.

I haven't used this but I imagine you run a server on a modern PC and point it at a disk image, and the XTIDE BIOS makes that disk image appear as a local (bootable) disk, via the serial port.

Probably much slower than using a network card though, so will be interesting to hear how you go with etherdfs.
User avatar
Malvineous
Member
 
Posts: 487
Joined: 2006-6-11 @ 02:24
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby keenerb » 2017-4-03 @ 00:17

Etherdfs is the real deal. 7k of memory and it works like a charm. It can also share your packet driver with mtcp utilities, so I was able to FTP a file from my ftp server to the mapped F: drive.

This is 100% precisely what I was hoping to find...
keenerb
Oldbie
 
Posts: 681
Joined: 2006-11-13 @ 16:24

Re: Modern options/alternatives for Interlnk?

Postby jade_angel » 2017-4-03 @ 00:43

Nice! That'll be very useful indeed!
Wintendo: Core i3-6100 | GTX 960
Linux Box: Core i5-4760K | GTX 550 Ti
98/2000 Box (Broken): K6-III+/500 | G400 MAX
PCI DOS Box: 5x86/133 | S3 Trio64/V2 PCI
VLB DOS box: 486DX4/100 | Cirrus GD5428 2MB
User avatar
jade_angel
Member
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 2017-1-03 @ 00:10
Location: Virginia

Next

Return to General Old Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SammyFox, tegrady and 6 guests