I use samba 2.0.5 on a Solaris 7 Ultra 10 to provide UNIX disk mounts and backups to UNIX tape drives. But I have this new XP and I can't get smbclient to connect to it, although the XP is using all the samba shares R/W. All I get is: /usr/local/samba/bin/smbclient //paulxp/"My Documents" passwd -Tc mydocumentsxp.tar Added interface ip=161.217.10.13 bcast=161.217.10.255 nmask=255.255.255.0 session request to PAULXP failed session request to *SMBSERVER failed I tried the regeditor to change the requiressignorseal to 0 and it worked just one time, now it's back to saying Sesssion Failed. -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
I am using Version 2.2.2 of samba on linux and have no trouble connecting to XP, either home or professional. So: 1. Do want to upgrade? 2. Have you walked through DIAGNOSIS.txt ? They talk about this as occurring on TEST #3. Joel On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:47:00PM -0700, Paul Huffman wrote:> I use samba 2.0.5 on a Solaris 7 Ultra 10 to provide UNIX disk mounts > and backups to UNIX tape drives. But I have this new XP and I can't get > smbclient to connect to it, although the XP is using all the samba > shares R/W. All I get is: > > /usr/local/samba/bin/smbclient //paulxp/"My Documents" passwd -Tc > mydocumentsxp.tar > Added interface ip=161.217.10.13 bcast=161.217.10.255 > nmask=255.255.255.0 > session request to PAULXP failed > session request to *SMBSERVER failed > > I tried the regeditor to change the requiressignorseal to 0 and it > worked just one time, now it's back to saying Sesssion Failed.
I don't really understand Test 5. The command looks odd to me, since -B is to set the broadcast address, paulxp is your client, and '*' searches for all clients. Odd. On my little home system, with three computers up and all on the same subnet, this is what I see with nmblookup '*' INFO: Debug class all level = 3 (pid 2453 from pid 2453) added interface ip=192.168.0.2 bcast=192.168.0.255 nmask=255.255.255.0 bind succeeded on port 0 Socket opened. querying * on 192.168.0.255 Got a positive name query response from 192.168.0.6 ( 192.168.0.6 ) Got a positive name query response from 192.168.0.2 ( 192.168.0.2 ) Got a positive name query response from 192.168.0.5 ( 192.168.0.5 ) 192.168.0.6 *<00> 192.168.0.2 *<00> 192.168.0.5 *<00> Now, this is broadcast result. That is, my box has sent out a message on the subnet and these three machines responded, including the local host machine. All three of these machines are linux samba servers, btw. Try nmblookup '*' and see what you get. Try nmblookup paulxp and see what you get. Joel On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 04:55:10PM -0700, Paul Huffman wrote:> I'd upgrade if I new it would help, but is 2.2.2 available for Solaris 7 yet? > > > Test 5 in DIAGNOSIS.txt gave me this result: > > # bin/nmblookup -B nelsonserver '*' > Sending queries to 161.217.20.16 > 161.217.20.16 *<00> > # bin/nmblookup -B paulxp '*' > Sending queries to 161.217.20.18 > name_query failed to find name * > # > > where paulxp is the name of the my stupid new XP. and nelsonserver is the > name of an old PC on the same class 3 subnet as paulxp that's aways been > talking with smbclient. What does this mean though? paulxp is pingable by > name, since it's in the /etc/host file. > > Joel Hammer wrote: > > > I am using > > Version 2.2.2 of samba > > on linux and have no trouble connecting to XP, either home or professional. > > So: > > > > 1. Do want to upgrade? > > 2. Have you walked through DIAGNOSIS.txt ? They talk about this as occurring > > on TEST #3. > > > > Joel > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:47:00PM -0700, Paul Huffman wrote: > > > I use samba 2.0.5 on a Solaris 7 Ultra 10 to provide UNIX disk mounts > > > and backups to UNIX tape drives. But I have this new XP and I can't get > > > smbclient to connect to it, although the XP is using all the samba > > > shares R/W. All I get is: > > > > > > /usr/local/samba/bin/smbclient //paulxp/"My Documents" passwd -Tc > > > mydocumentsxp.tar > > > Added interface ip=161.217.10.13 bcast=161.217.10.255 > > > nmask=255.255.255.0 > > > session request to PAULXP failed > > > session request to *SMBSERVER failed > > > > > > I tried the regeditor to change the requiressignorseal to 0 and it > > > worked just one time, now it's back to saying Sesssion Failed.
I was looking around at the other PCs around this LAN to see if I can figure out what's similar about the PCs I can't access with smbclient -L . It doesn't seem to matter if their XP, or Win 98. Found some unprotected shares I'd better correct. Just going through the Solaris host file PCs. /usr/local/samba/bin/smbclient -L //lindnelson Added interface ip=161.217.10.13 bcast=161.217.10.255 nmask=255.255.255.0 Password: Sharename Type Comment --------- ---- ------- SMOLTS2001 Disk ACCLSITES Disk TAMMYLENGTHW Disk KLICKITAT Disk CDBURNER Disk IPC$ IPC Remote Inter Process Communication Server Comment --------- ------- Workgroup Master --------- ------- pahto% /usr/local/samba/bin/smbclient -L //nelsonserver Added interface ip=161.217.10.13 bcast=161.217.10.255 nmask=255.255.255.0 Password: Sharename Type Comment --------- ---- ------- ADMIN$ Disk DWH Disk PHOTOS Disk SERVERBURNER Disk SERVERDATA Disk IPC$ IPC Remote Inter Process Communication Server Comment --------- ------- Workgroup Master --------- ------- NELSON SPRINGS NELSONXP Hey, what's this? There's another XP machine on my Workgroup that thinks it's the master? Would that cause a conflict? It's John's XP and he's a serious loose cannon. He tells me he didn't do anything on his XP. Am I going to have to add my samba server into the Nelson Springs Workgroup on NelsonXP? Let's see what smbclient knows about this NelsonXP: !:- //johnxp /usr/local/samba/bin/smbclient -L //johnxp Added interface ip=161.217.10.13 bcast=161.217.10.255 nmask=255.255.255.0 session request to JOHNXP failed Password: Domain=[NELSON SPRINGS] OS=[Windows 5.1] Server=[Windows 2000 LAN Manager] Sharename Type Comment --------- ---- ------- Server Comment --------- ------- Workgroup Master --------- ------- I'm confused. Smbclient looks like it knows johnxp's Domain and that it's a LAN Manager but I don't know if there's any shares so I don't know for sure that the request totally failed. -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed