similar to: newbie needs help

I'm a new linux user trying to run samba on Linuxppc R5 but smbd doesn't appear to be responding properly. Both nmbd and smbd are configured as daemons and netstat lists netbios-ssn as listening. I can't find anything else that would conflict starting from inetd. Nmbd appears to work as I can list the available servers and the server is seen by the clients but I don't need

--- samba@samba.org wrote: > SAMBA Digest 2218 > > For information on unsubscribing see > http://samba.org/listproc/ > Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) > by "Brandon Schnell" <brandonschnell@hotmail.com> > 2) AutoCAD R14 and Eagle Point > by Hank Burton <wburton@literati.com> > 3) Can't locate point and

I've been getting this error when clients attempt to connect. testparm passes OK, and smbd and nmbd launch OK, but when a client attempts to connect I get the following error messages (in the log): locking/shmem.c:smb_shm_open(930) ERROR smb_shm_open : mmap failed with code Invalid argument locking/locking.c:locking_init(169) ERROR: Failed to initialize share modes! I've been trying

Here's my setup: Caldera Open Linux Lite (kernel 2.0.29) Samba 2.0.4a Windows Domain (Two Windows NT 4.0 Servers -- one PDC, one BDC -- and numerous Windows NT 4.0 Workstations) I can see my Linux box in Network Neighborhood on my Windows NT boxes. I can open the Linux box and see the top level shares available. When I try to open a share I see one or two anonymous folders. Anyone

We have been using samba since 1995 and have found it superb, Thanks to all. Recently I built Samba1.19.17alpha4 on a DECstation 5000 running Ultrix 4.4 and included -DFAST_SHARE_MODES This results in UIST>smbclient -L UIST Session request failed (0,0) with myname=UIST destname=UIST Unspecified error 0x0 Your server software is being unfriendly and ERROR

Hi, I have updated my old 2.4.7 kernel to 2.4.19 using the full download from kernel.org and installed samba-2.2.6 Using my old kernel i can access every share and everything works fine. Using my new kernel also everything works but samba,. i can telnet the system, ftp also works ok, but windows 2k tells me server not found if i try to acces the shares. i think, i forgot something to compile to

I have posted a few messages earlier redgarding the lack of a STATUS..LCK file. I have progressed a bit further on the advice of some nice people on this list serve. Now, I seem to have the follwing problem with samba 2.0.4b on Linux 2.2.6 runnning on a Motorola StarMax 3000. after executing smbstatus, i get this message: Samba version 2.0.4b Service uid gid pid machine

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> 3. LLVM already has a significant amount of infrastructure for loop >> passes; why does this pass have its own code for finding loops? > > I saw the loop infrastructure for CFG loops. This algorithm finds loops in > the data flow (more precisely: strongly-connected components in the >

On 10/27/10 8:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Brian West<bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> Here is the patch for the new Operator Strength Reduction optimization >> pass that I have written. The bulk of the code is in >> >> lib/Transforms/Scalar/OperatorStrengthReduce.cpp >> >> The algorithm finds reduction opportunities in

I just upgraded to Debian 2.2 and Samba 2.0.7-3, but Samba isn't working. When I try and connect to a share from my windows box, I get a message "The specified computer did not receive your request. Please try again later." when I try to connect as I boot and "Permanent connection not available" if I try and connect later. Here are the messages from my log file. Does

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Empirically the OSR optimization is compile-time faster than LSR. I have > > also noticed that OSR has more "analysis" requirements: Induction Variable > > User, Natural Loop Information, Canonicalize natural loops, and Scalar > > Evolution Analysis. Both OSR and LSR require the Dominator Tree

Evan Cheng <evan.cheng <at> apple.com> writes: > Eli is right. We do need to see some benchmark numbers and understand how the pass will fit in the target > independent optimizer. While we encourage contribution, we typically don't commit new passes unless it > introduce new functionalities that have active clients. It would also help if you provide us with compile

On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Brian West wrote: > On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just >> zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? > This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR > proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. > >>> FWIW I noticed

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR >> >> > needs >> >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, >> >> > -reassociate, -gvn >>

I've just installed Samba on Solaris-8. When i start 'smbd' the following errors appear in the 'log.smb' log file: # tail ../var/log.smb [2000/07/13 13:53:19, 0] locking/shmem_sysv.c:sysv_shm_open(597) ERROR: root did not create the semaphore [2000/07/13 13:53:19, 0] locking/locking.c:locking_init(174) ERROR: Failed to initialise share modes

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR needs > >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, -reassociate, -gvn > >> > and -sccp can be enabling optimizations for OSR. > >> > >> Hmm... perhaps that could be partially fixed

On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just > zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. >> FWIW I noticed that other optimizations (as seen in StandardPasses.h) are >> followed by

> > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had initially > hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the problem > is > more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, > but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some people > regardless > of how the output compares. > A few years

Hi, I have a problem when I compile Samba 2.0.3, the next error message is generated doing "make": Using LIBS = Compiling locking/shmem.c locking/shmem.c: In function `smb_shm_open': locking/shmem.c:921: `PROT_READ' undeclared (first use this function) locking/shmem.c:921: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once locking/shmem.c:921: for each function it appears in.)

On 11/13/10 11:05 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had > initially > hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the > problem is > more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, > but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some