Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: mechy on November 21, 2010, 07:03:13 PM
-
Olaf Barthel has just sent me a demo version of his roadshow 68K and i just tested it on the A4000 mediator with the FastEthernet.device and all is working well.I didn't get enough demo run time to get any speed figures. Install is relatively simple and only takes about 5 mins in a text editor and 3 files to get up and running. It comes with a nice install script that copies all the needed files where they need to be without any fuss.Hopefully he will announce the release and it will be up for sale any day now!
Mike
-
Great news! Hope to see it soon, will be ordering my copy!
-
Count me in for sure! I've been waiting years for this
-
Does it support working DHCP? That's the only thing that really annoys me about the Genesis stack from OS3.9.
-
Does it support working DHCP? That's the only thing that really annoys me about the Genesis stack from OS3.9.
Yep,sure does
-
Good news for our Amigas! :)
-
Well thanks for the post but we need way more detais and some benchmarks..
-
Benchmarks? For a m68k tcp stack? What for?
-
well I don't want to be accused of being naive (stubborn for sure) but I think if Olaf Barthel attaches his name to anything you can be rest assured it is of a good enough standard. Or I am missing something here!
-
Benchmarks? For a m68k tcp stack? What for?
People like to see numbers :)
Roadshow works very well with my m68k cnet.device PCMCIA NIC on OS4. Certainly feels faster than it does with AmiTCP4 on 3.x, but that could be subjective. I should do some proper tests at some point.
-
I think that for the time being, Roadshow sounds really good for Amigas, but then I am kind of wondering what will happen to this comercial, closed source tcp-ip stack with no gui, next year, if Aros-m68k gets kickstart bounty II finished, and we may then actually have an open source tcp-ip stack with gui on 68k.
-
Go Olaf, go ! :-)
-
@Gulliver
Nothing prevents anyone from compiling the AROS IP stack for OS3.x today already :)
-
@Gulliver
Nothing prevents anyone from compiling the AROS IP stack for OS3.x today already :)
I didnt know that. So it will probably be out, in the wild, sooner than I thought.
-
Well thanks for the post but we need way more detais and some benchmarks..
Have a look here (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=54141).
-
Well thanks for the post but we need way more detais and some benchmarks..
It's right here on www.amiga.org (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=54141&highlight=roadshow&page=11) on page 11 of the thread.
In the same thread, on the next pages I also gave some figures for a baseline test I made on a puny Amiga 600HD, running AmigaOS 3.1, with 2 MBytes of main memory, the original MC68000 CPU installed, using a PCMCIA NE2000 card with the cnet.device driver.
I think Roadshow doesn't do so bad in terms of benchmarks, etc. ;)
You might want to read the whole thread. It's part of what got me going again, updating Roadshow 68k to make it into a commercial product.
-
Benchmarks? For a m68k tcp stack? What for?
Perspective? Given how many Amiga TCP/IP stacks still available today, it's one more bullet in the list of items to check when making a choice.
-
@Gulliver
Nothing prevents anyone from compiling the AROS IP stack for OS3.x today already :)
And there are some people complaining that the hurdles are too high for the common Amiga user today...
Some guys certainly love a challenge ;)
-
I'm looking forward to the release of this; finally something to replace the old commercial stacks which are no longer available :)
-
Is the DHCP bug (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=32282&forum=27&start=80&viewmode=flat&order=0) fixed?
-
Is the DHCP bug (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=32282&forum=27&start=80&viewmode=flat&order=0) fixed?
Yes, and confirmed by more than one user that it is indeed fixed.
-
Yes, and confirmed by more than one user that it is indeed fixed.
Good. DHCP is one of those things you really have to fight with. Reading the RFC doesn't really prepare you for all the weird stuff that's found in the wild... I've had my share of "fun" fixing DHCP client, too ;-)
-
Good. DHCP is one of those things you really have to fight with. Reading the RFC doesn't really prepare you for all the weird stuff that's found in the wild... I've had my share of "fun" fixing DHCP client, too ;-)
I admit that the DHCP client issues completely blindsided me. The code was originally written some 6-7 years ago, and I performed my own compliance testing (ahem) with the gear I had at hand at home. Written to conform to the original RFCs it worked as I expected it to.
But a couple of years later, the error reports came in, some of which were so bizarre that I struggled to put them into context. For example, in some cases the initial IP address allocation, etc. worked, but the renewal requests were consistently ignored. In other cases the initial IP address allocation consistently failed. How to make sense of that?
Well, I now know better, but I wonder if there is any lesson to be learned. The DHCP specs appear to make it too easy for implementors to come up with code that lacks robustness. When I wrote the PPP/PPPoE drivers from scratch, using the RFCs as the only reference, I never ran into the type of interoperability issues I faced with the DHCP client code :(
-
Reading the RFC doesn't really prepare you for all the weird stuff that's found in the wild...
Is there any RFC this observation doesn't apply to? :lol:
-
Is there any RFC this observation doesn't apply to? :lol:
I propose an April 1 RFC which demonstrates how useless RFC-compliance can be.