
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VLM-NETX.DOC -- 19971212 -- Email thread on VLMs versus NETx redirector
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

	Feel free to add or edit this document and then email
	it back to faq@jelyon.com




Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 12:44:02 EST
From: Peter Medbury <Peter_Medbury@SMTPGWY.AGRIC.NSW.GOV.AU>
Subject: Re: VLM vs IPX/NETX

>Okay, we're running a NetWare 3.12 25 user system. All the workstations are
>running IPX/NETX for interface protocol. Everything I've seen recommends
>using LSL/IPXODI/driver/VLM, and of course, that's what the Novell disks
>install in a workstation installation.

>I like the VLM method because troubleshooting is easier, since I can unload
>drivers at will, but our network manager (for some reason) has an unholy
>attachment to IPX/NETX.
>
>What practical reason can I give him for using VLM?

I am currently migrating all network to VLMs.  The environment
comprises 31 Netware 3.12 across a WAN (1200 users).

There have been no major problems.  The automatically ROOT MAP applied
to the LOGIN directory, prior to logging in and after logging out
meant that a number of batch files had to be rewritten but that was
about it.

There are a number of reasons you can give him why you should consider
VLMs:

1  Novell has released VLMs to replace NETX.  You can't expect
   continued support for the old protocol.

2  Allows memory swapping, reducing workstation RAM overhead.

3  Removes function duplications between the shell & DOS.

4  Automatically provides Burst Mode & Large Internet Packet support
   to improve network traffic performance.

5  Provides backward compatability for applications expecting NETX

6  Provides a nicer interface for the users (Netware User Tools)

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:44:14 -1000
From: Peter Stubbs <PETERS@STAIDAN.QLD.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: VLM vs IPX/NETX

Some thoughts on the VLM / NETX debate

We have 3.12 with ~120 workstations.

I've been upgrading my VLM's etc whenever I could in the hopes of
removeing the "balnk screen of death" problem. So far with no luck.
I have had a bumpy ride thus far.

This latest bunch have let me with about 5 dos programs that won't
run. I get errors like

Cannot find overlay..

Incert disk with basrun....

Cannot find EGAVGA.BGI

eventually I downgraded REDIR.VLM to 1.12 and the problems all went
away.

VLM's are a pain in my book!

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 23:30:32 -0500
From: "Larry C. Hansford" <hansford@ERINET.COM>
Subject: Re: VLM vs IPX/NETX

On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Peter Stubbs wrote:
>I've been upgrading my VLM's etc whenever I could in the hopes of
>removeing the "balnk screen of death" problem. So far with no luck.
>I have had a bumpy ride thus far.
>
>This latest bunch have let me with about 5 dos programs that won't
>run. I get errors like
>
>	Cannot find overlay..
>
>	Insert disk with basrun....
>
>	Cannot find EGAVGA.BGI
>
>Eventually I downgraded REDIR.VLM to 1.12 and the problems all went
>away.
>
>VLM's are a pain in my book!
>
>Peter Stubbs, St Aidan's AGS. ph +61-07-3379-9911, fax +61-07-3379-9432

When you get a system working with the VLMs that seem right, replace the
compressed VLM files on the VLMKT1 - VLMKT5 set of disks with the VLM
files that work, i.e. replace REDIR._XX with REDIR.VLM, and then upgrade
each PC using the VLMKT1-5 Client disks.  This will make it easy to get
all PCs in sync and working.

We found that by replacing the REDIR.VLM and GENERAL.VLM that come with
VLM 1.20a with the ones that came with VLM 1.20, everything works fine.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 11:49:10 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Are VLMs slow ? No They just don't work!

>I tried using VLM's on my Servers, one 3.11 and the other 3.12 and
>VLM's only lock up the File Servers.   We are just sticking with
>IPXODI, LSL, and NETX.  VLM's for us, DON'T WORK!

	Actually, they work well and faster than NETX. But, big but,
the lan adapters and drivers must be built to take network load. I'll
bet your's are not, and this is as good a time as any to find out.
Try turning off PBurst on stations to get an idea of the traffic
intensity aspect (see the VLM docs).
	Without any information about your site we can't offer comforting
words of advice on how to fix things, but fixing is clearly indicated.
	And on the comment below related to speed differences, this is
very much old hat, years old. For commentary on the matter, also years old,
please look at file dsktests.txt in directory apps on netlab2.usu.edu; it
still applies.
	If you need a standardized speed and load testing tool then I'd
suggest grabbing Novell's Perform3 from the same directory.
	Joe D.

>I'm testing again the VLMs against NETX and I feel that it's slower.
>I don't have analyzers to prove it but just looking at identical
>and adjacent computers, vlm look slower.

------------------------------


Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 11:27:00 PST
From: David Porco <DAVID@SCOTT.COMP-TECH.COM>
Subject: Re: Are VLMs slow ? No They Just Don't Work!

>We tried using VLM's on our 3.11 and 3.12 Servers and found that the
>VLM's only cause problems.  VLM's lock up both Servers!!!  We are
>sticking with IPXODI, LSL, NETX because VLM's DON'T WORK!!

I have seen problems with older NIC drivers in the file server causing
this problem.  The problem was with Packet Burst.  If I used the old NIC
driver and disabled packet burst (PB BUFFERS=0) in the NET.CFG it worked
fine.  Obviously not an acceptable fix since anyone else installing VLMs
would cause a server crash also.  So I updated the NIC driver (The
manufacturer knew of the problem) and everything was fine.

>Paul Massue-Monat <MONAT@PROFS.ADMIN.UOTTAWA.CA> wrote:
>
>>I'm testing again the VLMs against NETX and I feel that it's slower.
>>I don't have analyzers to prove it but just looking at identical
>>and adjacent computers, vlm look slower.

VLMs are slower according to Novell.  I got some suggestions from Novell
to improve performance to be very close to NETX.  The problem seems to be
that VLMs load into Extended Memory, and programs that do a lot of small
reads and writes cause the VLMs to swap into conventional memory for
every I/O.  you can help mitigate the problem by adding the following to
your NET.CFG under NETWARE DOS REQUESTOR:

  LOAD CONN TABLE LOW=ON
  LOAD LOW FIO=ON
  LOAD LOW NETX=ON
  LOAD LOW REDIR=ON

I have not tried this myself, so I can't vouche for it, but it might be
worth a try for your situation. Obviously it will take more of your
precious conventional memory, but the tradeoff may be worthwhile for you.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:37:25 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Installing Novell 4.1 Server IPXODI????

>I am upgrading a 2.2 server to 4.1.  I have setup a seperate server and
>have loaded the 4.1 sofware on it.  I can get the server up and running,
>but I can't get the workstation to find the server.
>
>My real question is.....
>
>Do you have to run the VLM with the 4.1 or can you still use the ipx/odi?
>When I try to run the VLM's it can't find the network card in the machine
>and beeps a bunch of can't load error to me.  With the odi/ipx, I can
>getit loaded on the workstation, but it then can't find the server.
--------------
	A large number of people seem to be asking this old question anew.
	The answer is:

	NW 4 NetWare Directory Services REQUIRES VLMs to login.
	NW 4 and NW 3 and NW 2 bindery services man use VLMs or NETx.
	The Novell open beta Client32 for Win95 can work with either or
provide its own equivalent of NDS login capabilities; it is highly flexible.

	This has nothing at all to do with ODI or IPX. VLMs replace NETX
which sits on top of IPX. We strongly recommend using VLMs and ODI;  see
netwire\novfiles for the current distribution material.
	ODI is a method of handling the lan adapter itself. IPXODI does
IPX work on top of ODI. Ancient monolithic IPX.COM which included a board
driver is many years out of date and should be removed from your site.
NET<char> is also out of date. NETX is the last of the series and is
independent of DOS version. Never use SETVER from DOS; something is wrong
if you think you need it. VLMs replace NET<> and provide Packet Burst support
in addition to NDS login capability; they run over IPXODI. In a very few
special cases you may have to use NETX to placate an old application.
	Please take time to read the NW manuals for your new o/s.
	Joe D.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 10:51:52 -0600
From: Joe Doupnik <JRD@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Minimal VLM Config

>I am trying to milk the last bit of life out of some AT-clones on an
>arcnet segment that we use on our factory floor to run a networked
>Statistical Process Control (SPC) charting program. Most of them only
>have 640K of ram and not hard disk; they boot off a 1.2 Mb floppy.
>Currently, I have them set up to use NETX.EXE
>
>I am replacing our 3.11 server with an Internetware 4.11 and I would
>like to get the dos client software up to VLM's but I recall trying to
>do this some time ago and never successfully was able to get enough
>memory to run the SPC software as well VLM's. I was just wondering if
>anyone out there who has had a similar situation could post a copy of
>their NET.CFG file that implements the absolute minimal VLM's to connect
>to a server.
-----------
	I think you are operating under a misimpression. VLMs live above
1MB and are brought down below that barrier for execution one by one when
needed, overlaying what was there before. Normally the execution area is a
piece of UMB (above 640KB, below 1MB), and its size matches the largest
VLM to be used. They overlay each other. That's clever technology.
	VLM.EXE is the manager and lives in conventional (640KB) memory and
usually does not load high well.
	The list's FAQ is full of examples of using VLMs.
	In the end I suspect you need a decent memory manager, not the stuff
MS ships. I use Quarterdeck's QEMM/386 and gain lots of space above 640KB.
	Joe D.

---------

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 13:05:49 -0700
From: Tim Madden <tmadden@ASPENRES.COM>
Subject: Re: Minimal VLM Config

<snip>
>	I think you are operating under a misimpression. VLMs live above
>1MB and are brought down below that barrier for execution one by one when
>needed, overlaying what was there before. Normally the execution area is a
>piece of UMB (above 640KB, below 1MB), and its size is matches the largest
>VLM to be used. They overlay each other. That's clever technology.

Very interesting.  I didn't know that.

>	VLM.EXE is the manager and lives in conventional (640KB) memory
>and usually does not load high well.
>	The list's FAQ is full of examples of using VLMs.
>	In the end I suspect you need a decent memory manager, not the
>stuff MS ships. I use Quarterdeck's QEMM/386 and gain lots of space
>above 640KB.

Except, of course, that the machines only *have* 640KB, so there's
nothing to manage :-).

The minimum VLM's required will depend on the server config and the
desired capabilities of the client, i.e. does the server support
bindery services, do you want the client to use NDS services or be
able to print?

Per Novell's Guide to Intranetware Networks, the required VLM's are
CONN, FIO, GENERAL, IPXNCP, NDS, NWP, REDIR, and TRAN.  The Optional
VLM's are AUTO, BIND, NETX, NMR, PNW, PRINT, RSA, SECURITY and
TCPNCP.  Now, if a bindery user is sufficient for the workstations in
question, then I don't see why NDS.VLM would be required, but
then you'd need to load BIND.VLM.  I have no idea which is larger,
but it can't be but a few bytes different, I would think.

So, Bob, there's your list of minimum required VLM's.  Good luck.

------------------------------

