Koozali.org: home of the SME Server

installation problem 6.0.1-0.1 ( worked with 5.5 )

Offline femc

  • ***
  • 54
  • +0/-0
installation problem 6.0.1-0.1 ( worked with 5.5 )
« on: October 24, 2004, 11:48:14 AM »
My scenario is : a P150 machine with 32 mb ram, inbetween the local network and an adsl modem cum router. For reasons only the router maker (smc)  knows ( or does not know ) I cannot operate the modem in bridged mode. Consequently I operate the sme with static ip on the external net - the static ip is the ip of the router / modem. Under sme5.5 it works fine. I do not set a master dns. I do not use dhcp.

The sme5.5 was installed via http, and everything worked fine.

As I wanted to upgrade to 6.0.1.0.1 I installed a cdrom on the sme box ( cannot http install with 32 mb ram ), and used the same configuration as with the 5.5.

I can access the server-manager viahttp, but web browsing, smtp, pop, external pings do not work.
 
What to do ?

buy a better box with more ram ?

Add a port forwarding rule ?

Any more questions on my setup ?

Any advice appreciated.

hdmueller

Offline arne

  • *****
  • 1,116
  • +0/-4
installation problem 6.0.1-0.1 ( worked with 5.5 )
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2004, 12:21:18 PM »
I also have a adsl router/modem that can not run in bridge mode. So the adsl modem is running in routing mode. Have set up the sme box at the lan together with the workstations. Works without a problem with external accessable web server, mail server, ftp server ans so on ..
......

Offline arne

  • *****
  • 1,116
  • +0/-4
installation problem 6.0.1-0.1 ( worked with 5.5 )
« Reply #2 on: October 24, 2004, 12:25:03 PM »
Not like this:

adsl router
I
I
sme gateway
I
I
Win workstations

But like this:

adsl router
I
I
Win workstations + sme server (server only mode)

Nat and hardware firewalling is performed by the adsl router.
......

Offline femc

  • ***
  • 54
  • +0/-0
installation problem 6.0.1-0.1 ( worked with 5.5 )
« Reply #3 on: October 24, 2004, 04:25:57 PM »
No the set up is :

adsl
|
ip : 192.168.0.16 (static )
sme ( dedicated server + gateway )
ip : 192.168.0.21 ( static )
|
ip : 192.168.0.20 (static)
adsl router
dynamice ip ( given by isp )
|
phone line

worked under 5.5 not under 6.0.1.0.1

Could it be that my box is undersized ( P150 / 32 mbram ) ?

hdmueller

Offline Reinhold

  • *
  • 517
  • +0/-0
    • http://127.0.0.1
installation problem 6.0.1-0.1 ( worked with 5.5 )
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2004, 05:18:38 PM »
hdmueller,

You are right in assuming that your memory is too low according to specification...
http://edocs.mitel.com/6000_SME_Server/6.0/6000_Tech_Handbook_En/6000_tech_handbook_en.pdf
however I doubt that's the only problem in here...

How about this procedure:
Upgrade your memory first. You need 64MB/128MB with 6.0x.
If you intend on mail & virusscanning put in at least 256MB and still expect your 150MHz (?)
(there were very few cpus made with that rating I am positive it's a downlabeled 166 and busspeed is much needed here) to "compute away sweating" .-)
Then:
Try to forward port 80 and check all things http...
if this workds (it should) then you are almost there, about 5 more forwardings and you should have normal standard functionality of an SME.

Regards
Reinhold
............

Offline femc

  • ***
  • 54
  • +0/-0
solution
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2004, 07:25:47 AM »
Finally I found it to be a hardware problem on my box, no need to open any ports.

I bought a P4 with 256 mbram, put in 2 more nics, and on the 2nd attempt it worked. I am giving up on the idea of recycling old computers as linux machines; the new stuff is really getting so cheap.

hdmueller

Offline Reinhold

  • *
  • 517
  • +0/-0
    • http://127.0.0.1
installation problem 6.0.1-0.1 ( worked with 5.5 )
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2004, 12:10:45 PM »
femc,

Good decision - my support for non-profits ever so often leads me to the same final conclusion: "Dump that old stuff and go for cheap current hardware" ... unfortunately mostly I'm then given "the honours" to open my own purse .-)

Why the heck do we assume XP deserves the new stuff and a Linux install is like a younger brother that "can wear it out" ...

Regards
Reinhold
............