From bernard at blackham.com.au Sun Jun 1 02:46:01 2003 From: bernard at blackham.com.au (Bernard Blackham) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:19 2004 Subject: [tech] webmail and apache-ssl Message-ID: <20030531184601.GA17475@amidala> I've put up webmail experimentally at https?://mussel/horde2/ ... if people like it, it could be promoted to webmail.ucc. If people liked the old (broken) twig better, speak now. It'd also be a good time to figure out how to get https to ucc from the wider world. Forward port 443 from mooneye through to mussel, let mussel be _the_ https server, and create an SSL cert for secure.ucc? -- Bernard Blackham bernard at blackham dot com dot au From dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Tue Jun 3 11:10:28 2003 From: dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Leighton Haynes) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:20 2004 Subject: [tech] webmail and apache-ssl In-Reply-To: <20030531184601.GA17475@amidala> References: <20030531184601.GA17475@amidala> Message-ID: <20030603031027.GB5985@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:46:01AM +0800, Bernard Blackham wrote: > I've put up webmail experimentally at https?://mussel/horde2/ ... if > people like it, it could be promoted to webmail.ucc. If people liked > the old (broken) twig better, speak now. Umm, this doesn't appear to work for me, I can log in, but the home page gives me a page empty except for "Welcome, dayta" with options and log out buttons. Incidentally, I set up an ultra-simple webmail at: www.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/~dayta/iwmm/ after getting tired of trying to get twig and horde working. It's slow, and simple, but it mostly works :) (I need to change the 30 second timeout to something more reasonable... our pop server seems inordinately slow) Leighton... -- #0421 113 305 - dayta@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au How do you expect?/I will know what to do./When all I know. Is what you tell me to. - Linkin Park/By Myself From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Tue Jun 3 12:54:07 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:20 2004 Subject: [tech] Disk for morwong In-Reply-To: <20030528161824.GA8156@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030528161824.GA8156@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030603045407.GD15125@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Wed, 28 May, 2003 at 05:56:05PM +0800, James Andrewartha wrote: > http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2731603229&category=11160 > > 1 day to go, currently at $305. We kept an eye on it, thinking $500 was a fair price... unfortunately with a couple of hours to go, it jumped to $800, then ended at $840. > Compaq Proliant Storage Array 7x9.1 7200 HDD. UW interface, dual power > supplies, 3 fans (good for ucc). Shipping is likely to be the only issue > (it's in NSW). According to Nick, he and yakk are good for $200 each, plus > UCC is probably good for a few hundred or so. Do we want to place some > bids on it? It was pretty good, but not at the price - we could do the fully-populated 12x9GB 10Krpm D1000 thing for that. I think ; * morwong should get an immediate, fairly modest upgrade, probably just of the internal discs. Easy, cheap, necessary. * we should also be thinking about a medium investment in a decent fileserver. RAID-10 (RAID-1E if anything supports it) on fast discs for /home, with a spare drive to [hot-?]swap in, in case of need, and a separate disc for root/swap. (If Solaris x86 didn't suck, meito would already be it ::-) ) We missed buying a faster morwong for $280, which is a pity: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3026941391 On Friday night [TRS], [MSH], Prep and I tried testing out one of my Storageworks bricks in morwong - I pulled out the unknown quality 4GB Seagate Barracuda and stuck in the 9GB Quantum Viking II we had - it fit physically, but we think the SCSI ID layout changed and it clashed with the tape drive, so it didn't quite work smoothly. There's an extra 4GB in morwong now, but even if it's error free, that's not really enough to do any useful shuffling. So... the current plan is, on Saturday 7th June 2003: Shuffle morwong's discs. Rip out the DDS2 tape drive and play with SCSI jumpers if necessary. Ideally, borrow SCA storageworks bricks from [TDH] or Prep and use a disc or two off the PPro Netserver, plus the spare 9GB SCA drive we have. At some stage we'll need to upgrade morwong to Tru64 v5.1b, too, but that'll take a while, and we had trouble reading the UCS media. On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:18:24AM +0800, Alastair Irvine wrote: > Put me in for a hundred. If shipping costs more than expected I'll put in > for some of that too. Has anyone bid yet? Is that $100+ still available for other fileserver upgrades? Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From bernard at blackham.com.au Tue Jun 3 13:14:31 2003 From: bernard at blackham.com.au (Bernard Blackham) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:20 2004 Subject: [tech] webmail and apache-ssl In-Reply-To: <20030603031027.GB5985@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030531184601.GA17475@amidala> <20030603031027.GB5985@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030603051431.GA3598@amidala> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:10:28AM +0800, Leighton Haynes wrote: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:46:01AM +0800, Bernard Blackham wrote: > > I've put up webmail experimentally at https?://mussel/horde2/ ... if > > people like it, it could be promoted to webmail.ucc. If people liked > > the old (broken) twig better, speak now. > > Umm, this doesn't appear to work for me, I can log in, but the home page > gives me a page empty except for "Welcome, dayta" with options and log out > buttons. Were you using IE? Somebody else had the same issue - https://mussel.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/horde2/imp/ seemed to work fine for IE. -- Bernard Blackham bernard at blackham dot com dot au From bernard at blackham.com.au Tue Jun 3 19:41:12 2003 From: bernard at blackham.com.au (Bernard Blackham) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:21 2004 Subject: [tech] webmail In-Reply-To: <20030603031027.GB5985@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030531184601.GA17475@amidala> <20030603031027.GB5985@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030603114112.GA12720@amidala> It's been promoted to webmail.ucc.asn.au - due to having to forward it through mooneye to mussel, it'll insist you use https. FTR, it works as follows (why do I make thing complicated?) - mooneye redirects http requests for webmail -> https. - https for webmail (headed to mooneye) is redirected to mussel at hydra - requests for / at mussel get pointed to /horde2/imp/, it voila. Thinking about it, if we threw at it another world accessible IP, it would actually be a lot simpler - but this works for now. Bernard. -- Bernard Blackham bernard at blackham dot com dot au From alastair at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Wed Jun 4 19:56:19 2003 From: alastair at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Alastair Irvine) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:21 2004 Subject: [tech] Disk for morwong In-Reply-To: <20030603045407.GD15125@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030528161824.GA8156@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030603045407.GD15125@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030604115619.GA155431@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Tue, 03 June, 2003 at 12:54:07PM +0800, Nick Bannon wrote: [snip] > Is that $100+ still available for other fileserver upgrades? It will be shortly. I'll make another pledge when impending purchases are announced. -- ... "Gunshot victim's life saved by breast implant" -- I think this headline (and the fact that it is news) says so much about what was wrong with the 20th century _____________________________________________________________________ | | | -=*Alastair Irvine*=- | | C-monkey/wanderer/board&RPGer/net-nut alastair@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au | |_____________________________________________________________________| From undertow at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 6 07:49:25 2003 From: undertow at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Aaron Alderman) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:21 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem Message-ID: After deleting my linux partitions (ie main partition, swap space and not used boot partiion) I used PartiionMagic 8.0 to combine them back into the main large NTFS partiion. The swap space and linux boot partition did not recombine properly and hence an error was produce. I am now unable to boot my computer from anything on my hard drive, and PartitionMagic is unable to fix the error that it created! Basically the whole partition is unable to be accessed, and hence I am not able to re-install windows or anything else onto that space. The only partition which isnt damaged is too far away to be bootable. As a result I fear that I may have to format my hard drive, losing gigs and gigs of data that just isnt feasable to backup. Has anyone gotten out of this type of situaton or can tell me what i can do? (hopefully not format) Thank You, Aaron Alderman From thebmw at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 6 09:08:23 2003 From: thebmw at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Brad Wake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:21 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030606010823.GA25157@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Try booting from a Windows install cd and running the repair installation option. If that fails to detect, then you may not be able to save the data. --Brad On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 07:49:25AM +0800, Aaron Alderman wrote: > After deleting my linux partitions (ie main partition, swap space and not > used boot partiion) I used PartiionMagic 8.0 to combine them back into the > main large NTFS partiion. The swap space and linux boot partition did not > recombine properly and hence an error was produce. > I am now unable to boot my computer from anything on my hard drive, and > PartitionMagic is unable to fix the error that it created! > Basically the whole partition is unable to be accessed, and hence I am not > able to re-install windows or anything else onto that space. The only > partition which isnt damaged is too far away to be bootable. > As a result I fear that I may have to format my hard drive, losing gigs > and gigs of data that just isnt feasable to backup. > Has anyone gotten out of this type of situaton or can tell me what i can > do? (hopefully not format) > > Thank You, > Aaron Alderman From dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 6 09:14:42 2003 From: dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Leighton Haynes) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:21 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: <20030606010823.GA25157@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030606010823.GA25157@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030606011442.GH115759@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> And this is a warning to not believe in Partition Magic. I've had nothing but horrible messy failures from that particular piece of software. (And before anyone says 'it always works for me', I think it's worth noting that any failure rate on this sort of software is probably enough to make it not worth using :P) Leighton... On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:08:23AM +0800, Brad Wake wrote: > Try booting from a Windows install cd and running the repair installation > option. If that fails to detect, then you may not be able to save the > data. > > --Brad > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 07:49:25AM +0800, Aaron Alderman wrote: > > After deleting my linux partitions (ie main partition, swap space and not > > used boot partiion) I used PartiionMagic 8.0 to combine them back into the > > main large NTFS partiion. The swap space and linux boot partition did not > > recombine properly and hence an error was produce. > > I am now unable to boot my computer from anything on my hard drive, and > > PartitionMagic is unable to fix the error that it created! > > Basically the whole partition is unable to be accessed, and hence I am not > > able to re-install windows or anything else onto that space. The only > > partition which isnt damaged is too far away to be bootable. > > As a result I fear that I may have to format my hard drive, losing gigs > > and gigs of data that just isnt feasable to backup. > > Has anyone gotten out of this type of situaton or can tell me what i can > > do? (hopefully not format) > > > > Thank You, > > Aaron Alderman -- #0421 113 305 - dayta@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au How do you expect?/I will know what to do./When all I know. Is what you tell me to. - Linkin Park/By Myself From matthias at ucc.asn.au Fri Jun 6 09:41:14 2003 From: matthias at ucc.asn.au (Matthias Liffers) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:21 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: <20030606011442.GH115759@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <000b01c32bcc$b7fade20$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> > (And before anyone says 'it always works for me', I think > it's worth noting that any failure rate on this sort of > software is probably enough to make it not worth using :P) Used to always work for me. Broke once, lost gigs and gigs of data :-P Matthias From adrian at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 6 09:40:25 2003 From: adrian at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Adrian Chadd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:22 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: <000b01c32bcc$b7fade20$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> References: <20030606011442.GH115759@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <000b01c32bcc$b7fade20$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> Message-ID: <20030606014024.GC113684@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003, Matthias Liffers wrote: > > (And before anyone says 'it always works for me', I think > > it's worth noting that any failure rate on this sort of > > software is probably enough to make it not worth using :P) > > Used to always work for me. Broke once, lost gigs and gigs of data :-P Thats the point, isn't it? "backups, backups!" Adrian From yakk at yakk.net Fri Jun 6 09:45:56 2003 From: yakk at yakk.net (Ian McKellar) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:22 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1054863925.16740.16.camel@gaz.yakk.net> On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 16:49, Aaron Alderman wrote: [snip doom] > As a result I fear that I may have to format my hard drive, losing gigs > and gigs of data that just isnt feasable to backup. > Has anyone gotten out of this type of situaton or can tell me what i can > do? (hopefully not format) You could try booting off some kind of linux recovery CD and doing some magicks: http://staff.washington.edu/trav/linux/lost_partition.html The key here is the nifty tool gpart that will guess where your partition table was before you screwed it up. http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/user/76201/gpart/ Ian From matthias at ucc.asn.au Fri Jun 6 09:49:07 2003 From: matthias at ucc.asn.au (Matthias Liffers) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:22 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: <20030606014024.GC113684@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <000c01c32bcd$d1c14460$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> > Thats the point, isn't it? > > > "backups, backups!" Heh. I don't have anything to back ~50gig of stuff up onto. Now I make regular backups of all my personal files/documents/assignments onto a different server here at home. From dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 6 09:51:10 2003 From: dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Leighton Haynes) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:22 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: <000c01c32bcd$d1c14460$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> References: <20030606014024.GC113684@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <000c01c32bcd$d1c14460$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> Message-ID: <20030606015110.GJ115759@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:49:07AM +0800, Matthias Liffers wrote: > > Thats the point, isn't it? > > > > > > "backups, backups!" > > Heh. I don't have anything to back ~50gig of stuff up onto. > > Now I make regular backups of all my personal files/documents/assignments > onto a different server here at home. Lets face it, the majority of stuff people have on their computers which is irreplaceable tends to be pretty small. Most people have issues with backups because they don't want to have to re-download all the warez ;) Leighton... (who routinely decides he doesn't care enough about all that downloaded crap, and just nukes partitions to make space) -- #0421 113 305 - dayta@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au How do you expect?/I will know what to do./When all I know. Is what you tell me to. - Linkin Park/By Myself From davyd at zdlcomputing.com Fri Jun 6 10:00:39 2003 From: davyd at zdlcomputing.com (Davyd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:23 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: <20030606011442.GH115759@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030606010823.GA25157@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030606011442.GH115759@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1054864839.997.3.camel@pingu> On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 09:14, Leighton Haynes wrote: > And this is a warning to not believe in Partition Magic. I've had nothing > but horrible messy failures from that particular piece of software. > > (And before anyone says 'it always works for me', I think it's worth > noting that any failure rate on this sort of software is probably enough > to make it not worth using :P) It _has_ always worked for me. That doesn't mean I trust it though. There is a certain amount of fear each time I press the "go" button. It's certainly not a piece of software I use unless I have to. -- http://davyd.ucc.asn.au/ PGP Fingerprint 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/tech/attachments/20030606/cc1ac74c/attachment.pgp From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 6 10:21:29 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:23 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030606022129.GC130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 07:49:25AM +0800, Aaron Alderman wrote: > After deleting my linux partitions (ie main partition, swap space and not > used boot partiion) I used PartiionMagic 8.0 to combine them back into the > main large NTFS partiion. The swap space and linux boot partition did not > recombine properly and hence an error was produce. [...] Oh, that's easy. You know the bit where everyone always makes a copy of the partition table and their important data before using these resizing tools. Well, you just restore from that and... Oh. Ah. Hmmm... Well, try the Windows install disc repair, and failing that boot off a rescue system and see what you can do. These days, that's Knoppix - burn a recent copy (like ftp://ftp.uwa.edu.au/mirrors/linux/knoppix/KNOPPIX_V3.2-2003-05-20-EN.iso ) on cybium and see what you can do. It has tools like "ntfsinfo" that might help you examine what's left, but "ntfsresize" won't be much help at this point. Knoppix Data Recovery HowTo/Computer First Aid Using Knoppix: http://www.shockfamily.net/cedric/knoppix/ Your data's mostly still there. Worst case, it's a question of how long you're willing to pore over it with a sector editor (lde) looking for recognisable text and magic cookies ( /usr/share/misc/magic ). Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From adrian at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 6 10:26:21 2003 From: adrian at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Adrian Chadd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:23 2004 Subject: [tech] Partition Problem In-Reply-To: <000c01c32bcd$d1c14460$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> References: <20030606014024.GC113684@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <000c01c32bcd$d1c14460$0a01a8c0@deiectus.deiectus.com> Message-ID: <20030606022620.GD113684@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Fri, Jun 06, 2003, Matthias Liffers wrote: > > Thats the point, isn't it? > > > > > > "backups, backups!" > > Heh. I don't have anything to back ~50gig of stuff up onto. Heh. Save $200, buy a 130gig "backup" drive. Resist the temptation to use the backup drive as space. Adrian From davyd at zdlcomputing.com Fri Jun 6 10:41:10 2003 From: davyd at zdlcomputing.com (Davyd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:24 2004 Subject: [tech] isec-ptrace-kmod-exploit Message-ID: <1054867270.996.18.camel@pingu> This seems twisted and wrong. I have a system patched against this exploit (2.4.21-rc7-ac1). However, it only protects against versions of the exploit I compiled after I started running a patched kernel. Any version I compiled before I had a patched kernel still works on my system, and still gives me root. However, a version copied from another machine, compiled before the patch, won't give me root (this implies that we should be safe). Can anyone explain this? -- http://davyd.ucc.asn.au/ PGP Fingerprint 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/tech/attachments/20030606/82607727/attachment.pgp From grahame at angrygoats.net Fri Jun 6 11:16:13 2003 From: grahame at angrygoats.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:24 2004 Subject: [tech] isec-ptrace-kmod-exploit In-Reply-To: <1054867270.996.18.camel@pingu> References: <1054867270.996.18.camel@pingu> Message-ID: <1054869373.21983.13.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 10:41, Davyd wrote: > This seems twisted and wrong. > > I have a system patched against this exploit (2.4.21-rc7-ac1). However, > it only protects against versions of the exploit I compiled after I > started running a patched kernel. > Any version I compiled before I had a patched kernel still works on my > system, and still gives me root. > However, a version copied from another machine, compiled before the > patch, won't give me root (this implies that we should be safe). > > Can anyone explain this? I'm guessing you forgot to remove the SUID bit from the pre-compiled version before you ran it on the patched system. AFAIK that exploit just sets the suid bit on itself. From davyd at zdlcomputing.com Fri Jun 6 19:07:07 2003 From: davyd at zdlcomputing.com (Davyd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:25 2004 Subject: [tech] IrDA and Palm Message-ID: <1054897627.1774.5.camel@pingu> I've been hacking on the IrDA on my Toshiba 2410. I think I've finally got it working. `irdadump` shows things now. However I can't test it with the only IrDA device I have, a Palm IIIc. `pilot-xfer -p /dev/ircomm0 -l` asks me to press the HotSync button, which is all very well and good, except that the HotSync button does not appear to HotSync over IrDA (at least I'm not seeing and IR traffic). I'm not sure if it's the IrDA not quite working. Or if I need a special IR HotSync tool for the Palm. Anyone more familar with Palm care to lend a few suggestions? -- http://davyd.ucc.asn.au/ PGP Fingerprint 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/tech/attachments/20030606/cbee50c3/attachment.pgp From davyd at zdlcomputing.com Fri Jun 6 19:12:57 2003 From: davyd at zdlcomputing.com (Davyd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:25 2004 Subject: [tech] IrDA and Palm In-Reply-To: <1054897627.1774.5.camel@pingu> References: <1054897627.1774.5.camel@pingu> Message-ID: <1054897977.1771.7.camel@pingu> On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 19:07, Davyd wrote: > with the only IrDA device I have, a Palm IIIc. Palm IIIe infact. -- http://davyd.ucc.asn.au/ PGP Fingerprint 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/tech/attachments/20030606/87cc0be0/attachment.pgp From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Tue Jun 10 17:47:30 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:26 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> I hear the network upgrade is coming along - is this the plan? * GR Services will pull a fibre tube from the comms cupboard in the Guild direct to the old computer lounge, Cameron Hall * They'll blow through and terminate at least two pairs of fibre (multimode or singlemode?) * They'll pull cat5e from the computer lounge to the UCC * There will be a managed VLAN-able DLink 10/100 switch with two 100Base-FX ports in the Guild comms cupboard and another one in the old computer lounge Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From david at luyer.net Tue Jun 10 18:30:01 2003 From: david at luyer.net (David Luyer) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:26 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <003e01c32f3b$3fe257c0$638317d2@ozpacnet.office.pacific.net.au> > * They'll blow through and terminate at least two pairs of fibre > (multimode or singlemode?) Would be multimode for on-campus stuff. Single mode is for runs in the order of kilometers not meters. David. From dave at difference.com.au Tue Jun 10 21:40:03 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:26 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: At 5:47 PM +0800 10/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: >I hear the network upgrade is coming along - is this the plan? > > * GR Services will pull a fibre tube from the comms cupboard in the > Guild direct to the old computer lounge, Cameron Hall Yep. > * They'll blow through and terminate at least two pairs of fibre > (multimode or singlemode?) Not blow through (too expensive), multimode. Probably only one pair out to Cam Hall. > * They'll pull cat5e from the computer lounge to the UCC Nope. Cabling from Cameron Hall to UCC is UCCs responsibility. UCC is free to either pay for G.Rs to do it at the same time, or do it otherwise. > * There will be a managed VLAN-able DLink 10/100 switch with two > 100Base-FX ports in the Guild comms cupboard and another one in > the old computer lounge probably only one pair in the Cam Hall switch. Actually three switches all up (one in CH, one in Guild ground floor comms cupboard, one in new guild comms room), one will have three fibre pairs, the others one each. I realise that in the long run (a few years) we will probably wish we had more fibre pairs, but then we hope to have a much bigger tech budget in the next few years than we have this year. We only just come in under budget as it is. Cheers David From trs80 at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Tue Jun 10 22:47:42 2003 From: trs80 at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (James Andrewartha) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:26 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, David Cake wrote: > At 5:47 PM +0800 10/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: > > * They'll pull cat5e from the computer lounge to the UCC > > Nope. Cabling from Cameron Hall to UCC is UCCs > responsibility. UCC is free to either pay for G.Rs to do it at the > same time, or do it otherwise. How much do you think it would cost to get GR's to do this? -- # TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \ # UCC President http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best | [ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your | [ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 / From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Wed Jun 11 01:09:58 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:26 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 09:40:03PM +0800, David Cake wrote: > At 5:47 PM +0800 10/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: > >I hear the network upgrade is coming along - is this the plan? > > > > * GR Services will pull a fibre tube from the comms cupboard in the > > Guild direct to the old computer lounge, Cameron Hall > > Yep. > > > * They'll blow through and terminate at least two pairs of fibre > > (multimode or singlemode?) > > Not blow through (too expensive), multimode. Probably only > one pair out to Cam Hall. Ah. Does the UCS link come into the Guild ground floor comms cupboard or the new Guild comms room? Will the fibre to Cameron Hall come into the Guild ground floor comms cupboard or the new Guild comms room? It's a pity about the blown fibre tubing - how much would that have been? Single pair (2 fibre) cable seems pretty rare - it's more likely to come in bundles of 6 or 12 (or 36!). I do have a Gerards/Clipsal quote of $2.15/m for the cheapest unprotected single pair cable, but 2 pair is $3.12/m and it gets better from there. Even the 6 fibre fibres-in-jelly-in-tube-in-armour-in-polyethylene-in-nylon protected cable is under $8/m. ($8.03/m for the 62.5um stuff, the 50um stuff might be significantly cheaper and probably preferable) > > * They'll pull cat5e from the computer lounge to the UCC > > Nope. Cabling from Cameron Hall to UCC is UCCs > responsibility. UCC is free to either pay for G.Rs to do it at the > same time, or do it otherwise. Fair enough. > > * There will be a managed VLAN-able DLink 10/100 switch with two > > 100Base-FX ports in the Guild comms cupboard and another one in > > the old computer lounge > > probably only one pair in the Cam Hall switch. Actually three > switches all up (one in CH, one in Guild ground floor comms cupboard, > one in new guild comms room), one will have three fibre pairs, the > others one each. Are those just extra pluggable modules, or are they different model switches with different numbers of ports? > I realise that in the long run (a few years) we will probably > wish we had more fibre pairs, but then we hope to have a much bigger > tech budget in the next few years than we have this year. > We only just come in under budget as it is. > Cheers > David I appreciate that, but I'm not sure the UCC's resources have been taken into account. We can certainly organise a cable across Cameron Hall, but we might be able to do more, like scrounge up a whole switch, or transceivers, or pay for an upgrade of the cable runs. Pulling the cable between buildings is the real bugbear and I was really keen to get us as close as we could to a fibre pair running straight from the UCC clubroom all the way to the UCS uplink, via a fibre patch panel if needed. Even if that fibre is initially dark, I think that cable run has got to have a chance of lasting through 8 years of upgrades rather than 2. Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From dave at difference.com.au Wed Jun 11 01:22:13 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:27 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: >Does the UCS link come into the Guild ground floor comms cupboard or >the new Guild comms room? New Guild. >Will the fibre to Cameron Hall come into the Guild ground floor comms >cupboard or the new Guild comms room? Probably direct from the new guild. >It's a pity about the blown fibre tubing - how much would that have >been? Its still an outside possibility, but unlikely. > >Single pair (2 fibre) cable seems pretty rare - it's more likely to >come in bundles of 6 or 12 (or 36!). I do have a Gerards/Clipsal quote >of $2.15/m for the cheapest unprotected single pair cable, but 2 pair >is $3.12/m and it gets better from there. Even the 6 fibre >fibres-in-jelly-in-tube-in-armour-in-polyethylene-in-nylon protected >cable is under $8/m. ($8.03/m for the 62.5um stuff, the 50um stuff >might be significantly cheaper and probably preferable) It might yet happen - but even a few hundred dollars might be enough to put them off. > > probably only one pair in the Cam Hall switch. Actually three >> switches all up (one in CH, one in Guild ground floor comms cupboard, >> one in new guild comms room), one will have three fibre pairs, the >> others one each. > >Are those just extra pluggable modules, or are they different model >switches with different numbers of ports? Extra pluggables. The switches are probably going to be Dlink 3225GFs, with a single fibre port, and an option module that can support 2 more. 3 is the max - but thats all we will need. Any advice about what exact switches to get is appreciated. It does look like the DLink will be enough cheaper than Ciscos once you figure in the cost of media converters, but I would appreciate any advice about the exact DLink gear. The patch cabling is going to be a bit of a mess - looks like we have all three kinds of fibre terminator. >I appreciate that, but I'm not sure the UCC's resources have been taken >into account. We can certainly organise a cable across Cameron Hall, >but we might be able to do more, like scrounge up a whole switch, or >transceivers, or pay for an upgrade of the cable runs. > >Pulling the cable between buildings is the real bugbear and I was >really keen to get us as close as we could to a fibre pair running >straight from the UCC clubroom all the way to the UCS uplink, via a >fibre patch panel if needed. If UCC is willing to pay for an extra pair, then it can definitely happen - and we would not be expecting UCC to pay for any of the base labor, only the extra cable cost. I will ask GRs for quotes on adding an extra fibre pair. >Even if that fibre is initially dark, I think that cable run has got to >have a chance of lasting through 8 years of upgrades rather than 2. Well, we still have the option of upgrading the cable to gigabit later on without pulling fibre. We have about a week to finalise this for Guild finance and planning. Cheers David From david_luyer at pacific.net.au Wed Jun 11 22:45:34 2003 From: david_luyer at pacific.net.au (David Luyer) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:27 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c33028$1d6306c0$638317d2@ozpacnet.office.pacific.net.au> > Well, we still have the option of upgrading the cable to > gigabit later on without pulling fibre. Yes, but 1 pair means if a single fibre core fails you're back to cat5 until you have it re-run (at close to the full original cost). 2 pair is a sensible minimum, and 4 pair is more common as a minimum run (on the usual principle that it's not much more than 1 or 2 pair). David. From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Fri Jun 13 02:52:27 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:27 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030612185227.GB130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:22:13AM +0800, David Cake wrote: > >Does the UCS link come into the Guild ground floor comms cupboard or > >the new Guild comms room? > > New Guild. > > >Will the fibre to Cameron Hall come into the Guild ground floor comms > >cupboard or the new Guild comms room? > > Probably direct from the new guild. That sounds good - the more direct, the better. > >It's a pity about the blown fibre tubing - how much would that have > >been? > > Its still an outside possibility, but unlikely. Sounds like price is a major factor throughout - not suprising. You're not making it easy - I'm going to have to do some major googling and price guessing here. ::-) You mentioned that the GR fibre installation quote was a bit over $3000... Is that one run between the buildings, plus the internal one between the comms cupboard and new comms room? or something else, too? It looks like they don't get extort you too much for blowing through fibres - 25% or less of the cost of dragging conventional cable. So... the real question is how much does empty blowable fibre tube cost to buy/install per meter compared to full cables? http://www.brand-rex.com/millen/cases/recovery.htm [...] > It might yet happen - but even a few hundred dollars might be > enough to put them off. UCC can handle _that_ easily - a few thousand extra dollars might be pushing it. ::-) However, it's a major capital expense that we'd really rather not do twice if we can possibly avoid it... [...] > Extra pluggables. The switches are probably going to be Dlink > 3225GFs, with a single fibre port, and an option module that can > support 2 more. 3 is the max - but thats all we will need. > Any advice about what exact switches to get is appreciated. > It does look like the DLink will be enough cheaper than Ciscos once > you figure in the cost of media converters, but I would appreciate > any advice about the exact DLink gear. Hmmm, not a bad switch. What's your price for each DES-3225GF and each module? Looks something like 3 x $1385.47 + $341.82 . http://www.downtown.com.au/new1888.htm http://www.downtown.com.au/new1032.htm (not exactly the right part, should be DES-362FM - 2 port 100BaseFX (MT-RJ)) Does Cameron Hall really need a switch that big? Do the Guild building switches need fibre between them or is copper OK? (I guess the answers are: Possibly not, but it's the right thing to do) Can someone check out the Cisco options? Media converters aren't necessarily a killer - if the base units have the slots to support it, there's the USD$80 1000Base-SX GBICs and USD$175 1000Base-LX new GBICs ; http://www.coast2coastaz.com/cisco/cisco.htm Next option is Alloy. The ESS-24T02M looks like a good replacement for the DES-3225GF. 24 10/100 ports and a module port for $594, $115 for a single 100Base-FX module, $203 for dual 100Base-FX and very affordable gigabit. An extra media converter for the central switch is $216 ; http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ESS-24T02M.htm http://www.alloy.com.au/products/fec120.htm There's also cheaper but still potentially useful semi-managed? switches ; http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ns1601fs.htm http://www.alloy.com.au/products/switch.htm Then there's more ad-hoc solutions. Perfectly fine by the UCC, but they have a risk of inconsistency headaches for you. ::-) Of course as far as UCS is concerned that might already be a small issue as regards not using their favourite media converters, etc. So... Brand new 24 port 10/100 Layer 3 switch-routers for buy-it-now USD$199? USD$299 with 2 gigabit uplinks? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3029784753 What's the catch? Ah... http://www.falconstor.com/npisupport.asp The manufacturer is out of business and merged into another company. Nevertheless, they're still looking tasty! > The patch cabling is going to be a bit of a mess - looks like > we have all three kinds of fibre terminator. I can see how that could happen . ST's are in place already, SC's are common and cheap, yet MT-RJ's certainly look like a sensible form factor in their own right. > >I appreciate that, but I'm not sure the UCC's resources have been taken > >into account. We can certainly organise a cable across Cameron Hall, > >but we might be able to do more, like scrounge up a whole switch, or > >transceivers, or pay for an upgrade of the cable runs. > > > >Pulling the cable between buildings is the real bugbear and I was > >really keen to get us as close as we could to a fibre pair running > >straight from the UCC clubroom all the way to the UCS uplink, via a > >fibre patch panel if needed. > > If UCC is willing to pay for an extra pair, then it can > definitely happen - and we would not be expecting UCC to pay for any > of the base labor, only the extra cable cost. I will ask GRs for > quotes on adding an extra fibre pair. Right. > >Even if that fibre is initially dark, I think that cable run has got to > >have a chance of lasting through 8 years of upgrades rather than 2. > > Well, we still have the option of upgrading the cable to > gigabit later on without pulling fibre. If the UCC gets its own fibre all the way to the new Guild comms room, there'll be more options and fewer obstacles in the way of the next upgrade. > We have about a week to finalise this for Guild finance and planning. > Cheers > David Right. Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From david at luyer.net Fri Jun 13 19:41:28 2003 From: david at luyer.net (David Luyer) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:27 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030612185227.GB130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <000501c331a0$bd0c63a0$46943ecb@ozpacnet.office.pacific.net.au> > > The patch cabling is going to be a bit of a mess - looks like > > we have all three kinds of fibre terminator. > > I can see how that could happen . ST's are in place already, SC's > are common and cheap, yet MT-RJ's certainly look like a sensible form > factor in their own right. 'all' three? There's over a dozen types of fibre connector. Try this PDF: http://www.fujikura.co.jp/cnc/eng/pdf_files/english/cnce001.pdf ...and that's before you even start looking at audio fibre connectors. At UWA the really old fibres were SMA, most newer multimode were ST and the new singlemode were SC. SC is the most common these days for new stuff but I've seen some Cisco PA's with misaligned lasers on SC, never saw any alignment problems with ST at UWA (but SMA was always a pain). David. From alastair at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Sun Jun 15 12:48:57 2003 From: alastair at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Alastair Irvine) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:27 2004 Subject: [tech] SpamAssassin Message-ID: <20030615044857.GJ455955@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> I have the following lines in my .spamassassin/user_prefs file, yet SpamAssassin's threshold for marking a message as spam remains at 5. Any ideas why? (mooneye is running version 2.43) # How many hits before a mail is considered spam. required_hits 2.6 I was filtering on the number of hits myself (using ~/.procmailrc), but I can't make use of the Whitelist feature if I do that. E.g. the following line should ensure that messages from the address below are marked "No" in the X-Spam-Status line, even if the number of hits is greater than the threshold. whitelist_from someone@somewhere.com -- ... "As a general rule, don't solve puzzles that open portals to Hell" -- _Survival_Guide_for_the_Supernatural_ _____________________________________________________________________ | | | -=*Alastair Irvine*=- | | C-monkey/wanderer/board&RPGer/net-nut alastair@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au | |_____________________________________________________________________| From matt at ucc.asn.au Sun Jun 15 14:14:56 2003 From: matt at ucc.asn.au (Matt Johnston) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:28 2004 Subject: [tech] SpamAssassin In-Reply-To: <20030615044857.GJ455955@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030615044857.GJ455955@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030615061456.GF451704@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 12:48:57PM +0800, Alastair Irvine wrote: > I have the following lines in my .spamassassin/user_prefs file, yet > SpamAssassin's threshold for marking a message as spam remains at 5. Any > ideas why? (mooneye is running version 2.43) > > # How many hits before a mail is considered spam. > required_hits 2.6 > > I was filtering on the number of hits myself (using ~/.procmailrc), but I > can't make use of the Whitelist feature if I do that. E.g. the following > line should ensure that messages from the address below are marked "No" in > the X-Spam-Status line, even if the number of hits is greater than the > threshold. > > whitelist_from someone@somewhere.com UCC's spamassassin doesn't look at ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs files, it is too hasslesome and would load mooneye too much. Matt From dave at difference.com.au Mon Jun 16 13:38:40 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:28 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: 4 core fibre will cost us roughly at least $650 extra overall, 8 core about $2000 more. So 8 core pretty much isn't happening unless ucc is willing to pay well over $1000 (for which ucc could have a dedicated fibre, rather than sharing a VLAN switch). For 4 core we would still really need a contribution from the UCC before we went ahead with it, at least for the Cameron Hall link. I'll get back with some more detailed figures in a few days. Cheers David From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Mon Jun 16 16:23:29 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:28 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030616082329.GE130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:38:40PM +0800, David Cake wrote: > 4 core fibre will cost us roughly at least $650 extra > overall, 8 core about $2000 more. [...] That's to use it throughout, not just on the Cameron Hall link? Ouch. How many cable runs are we talking? That's a nasty jump given that, compared to 2 core, 4 core cable costs less than double and 8 core cable costs less than triple. Anyway, four core is really the minimum. If we had a single pair and one broke, we'd be stuck... Contributing towards that wouldn't be a problem. The real comparison is to blown fibre. I've got a Page Data materials quote for that now, assuming a 200m run from Cameron Hall to the new Guild comms room: Conventional 4 core loose tube gel filled fibres: $4.66/m => $ 932 total 2 duct blowable tube $2/m + 4x blown fibre bundle $3.38/m => $1076 total That's for 62.5um MM fibres at trade prices - apparently UWA will get slightly better prices than trade, not worse. It leaves one duct free for expansion. Termination prices are the same, so the missing item is still GR Services exact installation cost. GR Services does have the equipment to do the blown fibre installs. Apparently UWA's mostly using 7 duct blowable tubes - John Lumsden would know. Grahame/Mark/James - someone want to find out more? Nobody's piped up on other switch options yet, but the Alloy switches look like better bang for buck. Navada should supply them locally. DLink 3xDES-3225GF (Managed, 24 x 10/100Base-T , 1 x 100Base-FX) DLink 1xDES-362FM (2 x 100Base-FX module) Total: ~$4180 Alloy 3xESS-24T02M (Smart, 24 x 10/100Base-T) $594 ea Alloy 3xEMG-02SC (2 x 1000Base-SX module) $493 ea http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ESS-24T02M.htm Alloy 1xFE-C120SC (100Base-FX media converter) $216 ea http://www.alloy.com.au/products/fec120.htm Total: $3477 Alloy 3xESM-24T02M (Managed, 24 x 10/100Base-T) $709 ea Alloy 3xEMG-02SC (2 x 1000Base-SX module) $493 ea http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ESM24T02M.htm Alloy 1xFE-C120SC (100Base-FX media converter) $216 ea http://www.alloy.com.au/products/fec120.htm Total: $3822 Alloy switches give us a 1000Base-SX gigabit backbone, consistency in case of switch failure and a couple of spare 1000Base-SX ports. We would be using a 100Base-FX UCS uplink until such time as UCS thinks gigabit to departments is worthwhile. Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From dave at difference.com.au Mon Jun 16 16:44:05 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:28 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade Message-ID: >On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:38:40PM +0800, David Cake wrote: >> 4 core fibre will cost us roughly at least $650 extra >> overall, 8 core about $2000 more. >[...] > >That's to use it throughout, not just on the Cameron Hall link? Ouch. >How many cable runs are we talking? That's a nasty jump given that, >compared to 2 core, 4 core cable costs less than double and 8 core >cable costs less than triple. That includes termination. >Anyway, four core is really the minimum. If we had a single pair and >one broke, we'd be stuck... Contributing towards that wouldn't be a >problem. I agree we should aim for 4 core - its just trying to fit it in under budget that is the problem. > >The real comparison is to blown fibre. Possibly. I don't know enough about blown fibre to know if it can be run across the same routes or not, which may be an issue for the fairly hairy Guild hall to cameron hall link. >Nobody's piped up on other switch options yet, but the Alloy switches >look like better bang for buck. Navada should supply them locally. > >DLink 3xDES-3225GF (Managed, 24 x 10/100Base-T , 1 x 100Base-FX) >DLink 1xDES-362FM (2 x 100Base-FX module) >Total: ~$4180 > >Alloy 3xESS-24T02M (Smart, 24 x 10/100Base-T) $594 ea >Alloy 3xEMG-02SC (2 x 1000Base-SX module) $493 ea >http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ESS-24T02M.htm >Alloy 1xFE-C120SC (100Base-FX media converter) $216 ea >http://www.alloy.com.au/products/fec120.htm >Total: $3477 > >Alloy 3xESM-24T02M (Managed, 24 x 10/100Base-T) $709 ea >Alloy 3xEMG-02SC (2 x 1000Base-SX module) $493 ea >http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ESM24T02M.htm >Alloy 1xFE-C120SC (100Base-FX media converter) $216 ea >http://www.alloy.com.au/products/fec120.htm >Total: $3822 > >Alloy switches give us a 1000Base-SX gigabit backbone, consistency in >case of switch failure and a couple of spare 1000Base-SX ports. We >would be using a 100Base-FX UCS uplink until such time as UCS thinks >gigabit to departments is worthwhile. Anyone else have any comments? I am not very familiar with the Alloys, and reasonably happy with the DLinks. Cheers David From grahame at angrygoats.net Tue Jun 17 11:30:57 2003 From: grahame at angrygoats.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:29 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030616082329.GE130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030616082329.GE130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1055820657.1524.7.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 16:23, Nick Bannon wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:38:40PM +0800, David Cake wrote: > > 4 core fibre will cost us roughly at least $650 extra > > overall, 8 core about $2000 more. > [...] > > That's to use it throughout, not just on the Cameron Hall link? Ouch. > How many cable runs are we talking? That's a nasty jump given that, > compared to 2 core, 4 core cable costs less than double and 8 core > cable costs less than triple. > > Anyway, four core is really the minimum. If we had a single pair and > one broke, we'd be stuck... Contributing towards that wouldn't be a > problem. > > The real comparison is to blown fibre. I've got a Page Data materials > quote for that now, assuming a 200m run from Cameron Hall to the new > Guild comms room: > Conventional 4 core loose tube gel filled fibres: $4.66/m => $ 932 total > 2 duct blowable tube $2/m + 4x blown fibre bundle $3.38/m => $1076 total I'm not sure about the jump from 4 to 8 cores, but the 4 core sounds like a good idea. If you get single core you're not completely stuffed if one fails; you just have to wait until it gets fixed. They are fixable though, although it'll cost money. Dave, is it in budget for you to go to 4 core? It sounds like a good idea. > That's for 62.5um MM fibres at trade prices - apparently UWA will get > slightly better prices than trade, not worse. It leaves one duct free > for expansion. Termination prices are the same, so the missing item is > still GR Services exact installation cost. GR Services does have the > equipment to do the blown fibre installs. Apparently UWA's mostly using > 7 duct blowable tubes - John Lumsden would know. Grahame/Mark/James - > someone want to find out more? > > Nobody's piped up on other switch options yet, but the Alloy switches > look like better bang for buck. Navada should supply them locally. > > DLink 3xDES-3225GF (Managed, 24 x 10/100Base-T , 1 x 100Base-FX) > DLink 1xDES-362FM (2 x 100Base-FX module) > Total: ~$4180 > > Alloy 3xESS-24T02M (Smart, 24 x 10/100Base-T) $594 ea > Alloy 3xEMG-02SC (2 x 1000Base-SX module) $493 ea > http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ESS-24T02M.htm > Alloy 1xFE-C120SC (100Base-FX media converter) $216 ea > http://www.alloy.com.au/products/fec120.htm > Total: $3477 > > Alloy 3xESM-24T02M (Managed, 24 x 10/100Base-T) $709 ea > Alloy 3xEMG-02SC (2 x 1000Base-SX module) $493 ea > http://www.alloy.com.au/products/ESM24T02M.htm > Alloy 1xFE-C120SC (100Base-FX media converter) $216 ea > http://www.alloy.com.au/products/fec120.htm > Total: $3822 > > Alloy switches give us a 1000Base-SX gigabit backbone, consistency in > case of switch failure and a couple of spare 1000Base-SX ports. We > would be using a 100Base-FX UCS uplink until such time as UCS thinks > gigabit to departments is worthwhile. We're looking into using Alloy switches on some of our smaller networks like the utility LAN. We've been using D-Link switches but have found reliability problems - the one in the office is doing VLANs and crashes about once every two months. That might not sound too bad, but it gets annoying. So, is Alloy within budget? We're chasing up Perth suppliers now, I'll let you know how we go and who our contact is. From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Thu Jun 19 12:21:40 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:29 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <1055820657.1524.7.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030616082329.GE130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1055820657.1524.7.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:38:40PM +0800, David Cake wrote: > 4 core fibre will cost us roughly at least $650 extra > overall, 8 core about $2000 more. [inc. termination] > So 8 core pretty much isn't happening unless ucc is willing > to pay well over $1000 (for which ucc could have a dedicated fibre, > rather than sharing a VLAN switch). For 4 core we would still really > need a contribution from the UCC before we went ahead with it, at > least for the Cameron Hall link. > I'll get back with some more detailed figures in a few days. > Cheers > David On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 04:44:05PM +0800, David Cake wrote: [Will blown fibre be OK for the same Guild to Cameron route?] [Any switch comments?] On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:30:57AM +0800, Grahame Bowland wrote: [...] > So, is Alloy within budget? We're chasing up Perth suppliers now, I'll > let you know how we go and who our contact is. So... Any updates? Thanks, Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From dave at difference.com.au Thu Jun 19 12:36:37 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:29 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030616082329.GE130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1055820657.1524.7.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: At 12:21 PM +0800 19/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: >So... Any updates? At this stage, I am going to try for 4 core fibre, with the second pairs purely as a backup. I am undecided about Alloy vs DLink switches - I wish I had more idea about how the various switches will actually perform in action. The Alloys in particular are a bit of an unknown quantity. Reliability is my main concern about the switches, providing we have the requisite VLAN support etc. I don't care much about 100 vs gig ether (though it seems important to Nick, I think there is a very little to gain from it), or about minor cost differences. Cheers David From grahame at angrygoats.net Thu Jun 19 15:29:00 2003 From: grahame at angrygoats.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:29 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030616082329.GE130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1055820657.1524.7.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 12:36, David Cake wrote: > At 12:21 PM +0800 19/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: > >So... Any updates? > > At this stage, I am going to try for 4 core fibre, with the > second pairs purely as a backup. I am undecided about Alloy vs DLink > switches - I wish I had more idea about how the various switches will > actually perform in action. The Alloys in particular are a bit of an > unknown quantity. > Reliability is my main concern about the switches, providing > we have the requisite VLAN support etc. I don't care much about 100 > vs gig ether (though it seems important to Nick, I think there is a > very little to gain from it), or about minor cost differences. We're "not happy" at UCS with the D-Links. They need manual intervention far, far too often. I've got an Alloy on order, it'll arrive tomorrow. I'll let you know how I go, and maybe drop around the office on Monday and have a look at it. One thing we're keen on is it's size : according to the spec sheet, it's much smaller depth-wise than the D-Link. The D-Links can be a real pain to get into small network closets. Cheers, Grahame From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Thu Jun 19 15:34:02 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:29 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <1055820657.1524.7.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030619073401.GG130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:36:37PM +0800, David Cake wrote: > At this stage, I am going to try for 4 core fibre, with the > second pairs purely as a backup. That sounds like a good decision. I talked to GR Services and no, blown fibre isn't going to work. The cable is going to have to go through a 20mm conduit and the 2 duct tubing (plus cladding) is 16mm, which is too close. They're going to have to pull out the 10Base2 RG-58 while they're at it. Apparently the maintenance guys are unhappy about the conduit as well, but we're kinda stuck with it because there's others wires running through it, too. So... we get one cable and if we ever want to upgrade it'll have to get pulled out and replaced, too. It's tempting to go for high quality singlemode in that case and have overengineered 10km range 1000Base-LX links, but compatible with the other media converters that UCS is putting in. The installation cost will be similar (less for the cable, more for termination), but the endpoints would be 3x$797 dual 1000Base-LX modules instead of 3x$493 dual 1000Base-SX modules. > I am undecided about Alloy vs DLink > switches - I wish I had more idea about how the various switches will > actually perform in action. The Alloys in particular are a bit of an > unknown quantity. > Reliability is my main concern about the switches, providing > we have the requisite VLAN support etc. Right. > I don't care much about 100 > vs gig ether (though it seems important to Nick, I think there is a > very little to gain from it), or about minor cost differences. > Cheers > David I think that we've "needed" 100Mbps for a couple of years now. One can always make do, but lots of things, almost entirely outside of the UCC's control, have to line up to make any kind of upgrade possible. (e.g. simultaneous availability of upgrade funds for UCS, Guild and UCC, willingness to allow a major network outage, and a shared opinion that it's "worth it".) So, given that this upgrade's going to have to last a while it seems worth paying a bit extra to get ahead of the curve. When it turns out that backbone gigabit is now so mainstream that it's a 8% _saving_ over the original DLink quote then it seems like we'd be mad not to. Even sticking to DLink it's still "only" a 50% extra cost per switch, because they're following the Cisco model of stiffing you on the optional modules and media converters. Upgrading later down the track means paying for all that, convincing everyone it's worthwhile again, _plus_ having no guarantee of finding the exact correct module for a two? year old switch by that point. More likely, it means replacing the switches. What's a fibre module's MTBF, anyway? I'm personally willing to pay the upgrade costs from the original "adequate" solution to the "luxurious" 1000Base-SX/LX solution, though I do hope that others help out. The UCC can't afford to stick a lab's worth of $2000 desktops around the clubroom every year or two, but it can afford cool shared servers and a cool shared network. Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From grahame at angrygoats.net Thu Jun 19 16:13:08 2003 From: grahame at angrygoats.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:30 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030619073401.GG130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <1055820657.1524.7.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619073401.GG130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1056010387.22676.15.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 15:34, Nick Bannon wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:36:37PM +0800, David Cake wrote: > > At this stage, I am going to try for 4 core fibre, with the > > second pairs purely as a backup. > > That sounds like a good decision. > > I talked to GR Services and no, blown fibre isn't going to work. The > cable is going to have to go through a 20mm conduit and the 2 duct > tubing (plus cladding) is 16mm, which is too close. They're going to > have to pull out the 10Base2 RG-58 while they're at it. > > Apparently the maintenance guys are unhappy about the conduit as well, > but we're kinda stuck with it because there's others wires running > through it, too. > > So... we get one cable and if we ever want to upgrade it'll have to get > pulled out and replaced, too. > > It's tempting to go for high quality singlemode in that case and have > overengineered 10km range 1000Base-LX links, but compatible with the > other media converters that UCS is putting in. The installation cost > will be similar (less for the cable, more for termination), but the > endpoints would be 3x$797 dual 1000Base-LX modules instead of 3x$493 > dual 1000Base-SX modules. There is no need to go single mode for this length of link. 1Gb works fine on multi-mode, and 10Gb (should we ever want it) will probably work too. I'm doubtful 10Gb will be necessary in the medium term - it's definitely more than five years away from being a "must have". The other thing to consider: media converters fail. They fail more often than any other part of this equipment. You want the replacement cost to be low, as you want to be able to acquire spares while you're waiting for media converters to be replaced under warranty. Also note that single mode is much more fussy about dust and such things. > > I don't care much about 100 > > vs gig ether (though it seems important to Nick, I think there is a > > very little to gain from it), or about minor cost differences. > > Cheers > > David > > I think that we've "needed" 100Mbps for a couple of years now. One can > always make do, but lots of things, almost entirely outside of the > UCC's control, have to line up to make any kind of upgrade possible. > (e.g. simultaneous availability of upgrade funds for UCS, Guild and > UCC, willingness to allow a major network outage, and a shared opinion > that it's "worth it".) > > So, given that this upgrade's going to have to last a while it seems > worth paying a bit extra to get ahead of the curve. When it turns out > that backbone gigabit is now so mainstream that it's a 8% _saving_ over > the original DLink quote then it seems like we'd be mad not to. Even > sticking to DLink it's still "only" a 50% extra cost per switch, > because they're following the Cisco model of stiffing you on the > optional modules and media converters. Upgrading later down the track > means paying for all that, convincing everyone it's worthwhile again, > _plus_ having no guarantee of finding the exact correct module for a > two? year old switch by that point. More likely, it means replacing the > switches. What's a fibre module's MTBF, anyway? > > I'm personally willing to pay the upgrade costs from the original > "adequate" solution to the "luxurious" 1000Base-SX/LX solution, though > I do hope that others help out. The UCC can't afford to stick a lab's > worth of $2000 desktops around the clubroom every year or two, but it > can afford cool shared servers and a cool shared network. Fair enough. Nick, did you see in the committee minutes that we're not going to be terminating fibre in the UCC machine room? I think it's a bad idea, as fibre has a MUCH lower tolerance for being kicked, trodden on, twisted, sneezed on and moved than your average piece of copper wire. So we'll probably be limited to a 100baseT connection from the guild switch to the UCC machine room. This *really* doesn't matter as the Guild<->UWA is only 100Mb anyway, and we're unlikely to actually want to exchange files at high speed with the Guild. I reckon we can worry about a higher Guild<->UCC link at the same time we sort out the machine room issue. If we can get 1000Base-SX for the same price (or lower) than 100BaseFX then I reckon go for it. As I said, I'll have a look at the Alloy tomorrow - the experience in UCS and ACS with the D-Links is that they are somewhat dodgy. From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Thu Jun 19 17:33:57 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:30 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <1056010387.22676.15.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619073401.GG130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056010387.22676.15.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030619093357.GI130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 04:13:08PM +0800, Grahame Bowland wrote: [...] > There is no need to go single mode for this length of link. 1Gb works > fine on multi-mode, and 10Gb (should we ever want it) will probably work > too. I'm doubtful 10Gb will be necessary in the medium term - it's > definitely more than five years away from being a "must have". 10G Ethernet might seem blue-sky but it won't work on this link, it'll only manage 26m-33m on the MM62.5 cable that's being planned. My Clipsal/Gerards quote says that MM50 is actually a bit cheaper, so I'm not sure why it isn't the default yet. Anyway, at 82m, that probably wouldn't reach either. http://www.10gea.org/10GEA_FAQ_0602.pdf 10G Ethernet won't be a "must have", but I figure there'll be some people playing with it on campus within a couple of years if not before. > The other thing to consider: media converters fail. They fail more often > than any other part of this equipment. You want the replacement cost to > be low, as you want to be able to acquire spares while you're waiting > for media converters to be replaced under warranty. True. That's why I think Alloy's good, and why I'm assuming the fibre modules should all be doubles, and be interchangeable with each other. Irritatingly enough, the standalone single interface media converters cost more than the double interface switch modules. The Cisco GBICs can at least be trusted to be available for a price, but we assume the switch purchase price will be high enough for Cisco not to be an option anyway. > Also note that single mode is much more fussy about dust and such > things. [...] > Nick, did you see in the committee minutes that we're not going to be > terminating fibre in the UCC machine room? I think it's a bad idea, as > fibre has a MUCH lower tolerance for being kicked, trodden on, twisted, > sneezed on and moved than your average piece of copper wire. Yes, I saw that - that's fine, as long as there's a spare fibre pair in the inter-building link it doesn't really make any difference what's on second floor, Cameron Hall. 100BaseT today, and if we wanted to change anything, it's all easily accessible. > So we'll probably be limited to a 100baseT connection from the guild > switch to the UCC machine room. This *really* doesn't matter as the > Guild<->UWA is only 100Mb anyway, and we're unlikely to actually want > to exchange files at high speed with the Guild. I agree, but not for that reason. ::-) * There's no reason for UCC to upgrade to a high speed link to the Guild because the UCS link is slower, and hey, it's not like UCC even has high speed gear internally. * There's no reason for UCC to help the Guild to upgrade to a high speed link to UCS, because the UCC link is slower, and hey, it's not like the Guild even has high speed gear internally. * No-one wants to rip out everything at once and replace it because it would be risky, have a long outage and cost a heap, for a mere 10x speed increase that nobody really _needs_, anyway. * Therefore nobody upgrades anything until blind Freddy can see it's obsolete. ::-) > I reckon we can worry about a higher Guild<->UCC link at the same > time we sort out the machine room issue. I'm sure we'll rearrange the clubroom half a dozen times by the time we get a chance to pull new cable to the Guild... Assuming we don't lose or change the clubroom that is, but it's as solid an arrangement as it's ever likely to be right now, having just gone through the alarm and power refits. Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Mon Jun 23 16:00:45 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:30 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:29:00PM +0800, Grahame Bowland wrote: [...] > I've got an Alloy on order, it'll arrive tomorrow. I'll let you know how > I go, and maybe drop around the office on Monday and have a look at it. Well, UCS'es Alloy switch hasn't actually arrived yet... However, seeing as the upgrade was meant to be finalised for Guild finance and planning by today - what's the current plan? Do we need to obtain quotes for the switches? Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From dave at difference.com.au Mon Jun 23 16:08:45 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:30 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: At 4:00 PM +0800 23/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: >On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:29:00PM +0800, Grahame Bowland wrote: >[...] >> I've got an Alloy on order, it'll arrive tomorrow. I'll let you know how >> I go, and maybe drop around the office on Monday and have a look at it. > >Well, UCS'es Alloy switch hasn't actually arrived yet... > >However, seeing as the upgrade was meant to be finalised for Guild >finance and planning by today - what's the current plan? Do we need to >obtain quotes for the switches? I have already sent the Guild a quote, using Alloy switches, 4 core fibre. How much is UCC willing to chip in? Regards David From grahame at angrygoats.net Mon Jun 23 23:09:53 2003 From: grahame at angrygoats.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:31 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1056380993.23477.2.camel@solitaire> On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 16:08, David Cake wrote: > I have already sent the Guild a quote, using Alloy switches, > 4 core fibre. > How much is UCC willing to chip in? Original plan was half of the price of the Cameron Hall switch, and any UCC specific costs to link the clubroom to it. We're good up to $500 or so without going back to UCC committee. Cheers Grahame PS: The D-Links are awful. We're having a LOT of trouble with them around the utility LAN at the moment. They seem to get into a state where they'll forward packets but the management stuff stops working, and then ports randomly start failing. It's not just one switch either.. the replacements we get work, but it's still a pain having to shuffle bits about. From dave at difference.com.au Tue Jun 24 16:05:43 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:31 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <1056380993.23477.2.camel@solitaire> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056380993.23477.2.camel@solitaire> Message-ID: At 11:09 PM +0800 23/6/03, Grahame Bowland wrote: >On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 16:08, David Cake wrote: > >> I have already sent the Guild a quote, using Alloy switches, >> 4 core fibre. >> How much is UCC willing to chip in? > >Original plan was half of the price of the Cameron Hall switch, and any >UCC specific costs to link the clubroom to it. We're good up to $500 or >so without going back to UCC committee. Yes. I would now appreciate also some of the cost of upgrading to 4 core fibre, so an increase from $500 would be appreciated (up to $1000). >PS: The D-Links are awful. Lets hope the Alloys are better. Cheers David From bernard at blackham.com.au Tue Jun 24 16:22:38 2003 From: bernard at blackham.com.au (Bernard Blackham) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:32 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056380993.23477.2.camel@solitaire> Message-ID: <20030624082238.GA1476@amidala> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:05:43PM +0800, David Cake wrote: > Yes. I would now appreciate also some of the cost of > upgrading to 4 core fibre, so an increase from $500 would be > appreciated (up to $1000). It was agreed at the committee meeting last week that UCC can put forward up to $1000, to cover both the switch & fibre. $1000 is probably as far as we can go before needing member donations (which are always welcome anyway :) Regards, Bernard. UCC Treasurer 2003 -- Bernard Blackham bernard at blackham dot com dot au -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/tech/attachments/20030624/5b04ae91/attachment.pgp From dave at difference.com.au Tue Jun 24 16:33:11 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:32 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030624082238.GA1476@amidala> References: <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056380993.23477.2.camel@solitaire> <20030624082238.GA1476@amidala> Message-ID: At 4:22 PM +0800 24/6/03, Bernard Blackham wrote: >On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:05:43PM +0800, David Cake wrote: >> Yes. I would now appreciate also some of the cost of >> upgrading to 4 core fibre, so an increase from $500 would be >> appreciated (up to $1000). > >It was agreed at the committee meeting last week that UCC can put >forward up to $1000, to cover both the switch & fibre. $1000 is >probably as far as we can go before needing member donations (which >are always welcome anyway :) $1000 would rock. Cheers David From dave at difference.com.au Thu Jun 26 11:46:03 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:32 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: We have approval for the network upgrade. A UCC contribution of $1000 would be appreciated - please could someone from UCC contact Thim Lee. I will contact GR Services today for them to begin work. We are going with Alloy switches. My only questions about the switches - would using 100MB rather than Gigabit switching increase reliability/available of replacement parts/media converters in case of failure significantly? I'm worried more about reliability rather than the additional speed gigabit will supply (given that fully switched 100MB is so big an improvment anyway). Regards David From grahame at angrygoats.net Thu Jun 26 12:02:40 2003 From: grahame at angrygoats.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:32 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030429151346.GI364676@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1056600160.8151.20.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 11:46, David Cake wrote: > We have approval for the network upgrade. > A UCC contribution of $1000 would be appreciated - please > could someone from UCC contact Thim Lee. > I will contact GR Services today for them to begin work. > We are going with Alloy switches. > My only questions about the switches - would using 100MB > rather than Gigabit switching increase reliability/available of > replacement parts/media converters in case of failure significantly? > I'm worried more about reliability rather than the additional speed > gigabit will supply (given that fully switched 100MB is so big an > improvment anyway). Go the 1Gb, it's as common as 100Mb now and it's more future-proof. Given you're going for internal modules on the switch, I'd say it's more likely you'll be able to get 1Gb modules in the future. A few departments are running 1Gb internally now, including some of the colleges. Cheers, Grahame From nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Thu Jun 26 12:47:50 2003 From: nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Nick Bannon) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:32 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030626044750.GL130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0800, David Cake wrote: > We have approval for the network upgrade. Wonderful! > A UCC contribution of $1000 would be appreciated - please > could someone from UCC contact Thim Lee. It's almost dissapointing not to pay more for better , but I think the current plan is pretty much the sweet spot in value - slightly cheaper, yet better specified than the first draft. Going singlemode would have added about 50% to the project. > I will contact GR Services today for them to begin work. > We are going with Alloy switches. > My only questions about the switches - would using 100MB > rather than Gigabit switching increase reliability/available of > replacement parts/media converters in case of failure significantly? > I'm worried more about reliability rather than the additional speed > gigabit will supply (given that fully switched 100MB is so big an > improvment anyway). Well, that's the basic tradeoff of custom switch modules versus GBICs or external media converters. They're much cheaper - to the point where you can buy entire spare switches for less than the cost of the other solutions. Still, we'll have three identical units and UCS may pick up more, so it's not instantly vital. Alloy would supply MTBF specs, I'm sure. Thanks for your help, Nick. -- Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because nick-sig@rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal From bernard at blackham.com.au Thu Jun 26 13:42:33 2003 From: bernard at blackham.com.au (Bernard Blackham) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:33 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030626054233.GA1630@amidala> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0800, David Cake wrote: > A UCC contribution of $1000 would be appreciated - please > could someone from UCC contact Thim Lee. Done. He's happy :) Bernard. -- Bernard Blackham bernard at blackham dot com dot au From dave at difference.com.au Thu Jun 26 16:47:48 2003 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:33 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: <20030626044750.GL130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030626044750.GL130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: At 12:47 PM +0800 26/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: >On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0800, David Cake wrote: >> We have approval for the network upgrade. > >Wonderful! > >> A UCC contribution of $1000 would be appreciated - please >> could someone from UCC contact Thim Lee. > >It's almost dissapointing not to pay more for better , but I >think the current plan is pretty much the sweet spot in value - >slightly cheaper, yet better specified than the first draft. Its so dramatic an improvement from what we have, I'm just relieved to have it. > Going >singlemode would have added about 50% to the project. And IMO made it worse - less reliable, with no real gain. Cheers David From grahame at angrygoats.net Thu Jun 26 17:34:16 2003 From: grahame at angrygoats.net (Grahame Bowland) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:33 2004 Subject: [tech] Re: UCC uplink network upgrade In-Reply-To: References: <20030502074903.GI497132@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610094729.GI130576@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030610170958.GA130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030619042140.GF516810@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <1056007739.22676.1.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> <20030623080044.GK130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20030626044750.GL130524@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <1056620056.8151.39.camel@typhaon.ucs.uwa.edu.au> On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 16:47, David Cake wrote: > At 12:47 PM +0800 26/6/03, Nick Bannon wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:46:03AM +0800, David Cake wrote: > >> We have approval for the network upgrade. > > > >Wonderful! > > > >> A UCC contribution of $1000 would be appreciated - please > >> could someone from UCC contact Thim Lee. > > > >It's almost dissapointing not to pay more for better , but I > >think the current plan is pretty much the sweet spot in value - > >slightly cheaper, yet better specified than the first draft. > > Its so dramatic an improvement from what we have, I'm just > relieved to have it. Oh, and I've got one of the alloy switches to play with now, seems fine. I'm configuring it up to do VLANs at the moment -- seems *much* saner than the D-Links are. Cheers Grahame From dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Mon Jun 30 13:31:42 2003 From: dayta at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Leighton Haynes) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:33 2004 Subject: [tech] cvs Message-ID: <20030630053142.GD340189@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Hey guys, Do we have a CVS server set up anywhere? Preferably accessible to anywhere inside waix? Leighton... -- #0421 113 305 - dayta@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au How do you expect?/I will know what to do./When all I know. Is what you tell me to. - Linkin Park/By Myself From trent at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au Mon Jun 30 14:01:42 2003 From: trent at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Trent Lloyd) Date: Wed Oct 27 01:27:33 2004 Subject: [tech] cvs In-Reply-To: <20030630053142.GD340189@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> References: <20030630053142.GD340189@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> Message-ID: <20030630060142.GA414893@morwong.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> UCC has CVS in /home/other/cvs u can export CVS_RSH=ssh or i think mussel runs a pserver You need someone to add you to the cvs group tho else hassle me and ill give you a CVS on my box. Cheers, Trent Sixlabs On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 01:31:42PM +0800, Leighton Haynes wrote: > Hey guys, > Do we have a CVS server set up anywhere? Preferably accessible to > anywhere inside waix? > > Leighton... > -- > > #0421 113 305 - dayta@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au > How do you expect?/I will know what to do./When all I know. > Is what you tell me to. - Linkin Park/By Myself