Hi all Just a query from a fellow tech who's playing with Samba. He just asked me the following question, it's something I've never really thought of, but on the face of it could be worth further investigation. Any thoughts?? TIA <snip> Was doing some research last night on high availablilty - led me to a thought which I have seen around before but decided it was not necessary. What are your thoughts on using inetd to control the Samba daemon? This (ought to) fix problems with an unstable process running as the user and crashing. Usually a restart of Samba is required to get it going again </snip>
Why don't you try it and tell us what happens? Thinking about it, it sounds like a bad idea. smbd spawns copies of itself to handle each request. So, if there are 10 people logged on to one share each, I think you would find 10 copies of smbd running. Sound inefficient, I know. And, I don't see how inetd would improve things. Here is what I have right now: [root@jhammer6 jlh]# ps ax | grep smbd 1482 ? S 0:00 smbd -D <--This is the pid in smbd.pid 2179 ? S 16:58 smbd -D 6668 ? S 0:00 smbd -D 6939 ? S 0:00 smbd -D With smbstatus: Samba version 2.2.1a Service uid gid pid machine ---------------------------------------------- Backup root root 2179 hammer2 (192.168.0.2) Sun Jul 14 22:23:08 2002 public ftp ftp 6939 jhammer6 (192.168.0.6) Mon Jul 15 20:21:14 2002 public ftp ftp 6668 hammer8 (192.168.0.8) Mon Jul 15 19:43:38 2002 Joel On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:46:57AM +0930, Freeman, Peter (ERHS) wrote:> > Hi all > > Just a query from a fellow tech who's playing with Samba. > He just asked me the following question, it's something I've > never really thought of, but on the face of it could be worth > further investigation. > > Any thoughts?? > > TIA > > <snip> > > Was doing some research last night on high availablilty - > led me to a thought which I have seen around before but > decided it was not necessary. > > What are your thoughts on using inetd to control the Samba daemon? > This (ought to) fix problems with an unstable process running as the > user and crashing. Usually a restart of Samba is required to get it > going again > > </snip> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>Why don't you try it and tell us what happens? >Thinking about it, it sounds like a bad idea. smbd spawns >copies of itself >to handle each request. So, if there are 10 people logged on >to one share >each, I think you would find 10 copies of smbd running. >Sound inefficient, I know. And, I don't see how inetd would >improve things.Currently we have a samba box running around 70 concurrent users, the smbd process count is quite high (50 or so), so you raise a very good point. I think the original question that I was asked revolved around maybe improving the HA aspect of samba by using inetd, just bouncing it off the list to see if anyone else had the same thought or had already tried it.
I have tried using smbd and nmbd with inetd. The problem I ran into was during startup. Using samba as the master browser and PDC, the samba processes were not running until the first time something explicetly accessed the port on the samba node. Often password validation from Windows98 machines would fail until something stimulated inetd into running nmbd and smbd. -- Robert E. Styma Principal Engineer AG Communication Systems, Phoenix - A subsidiary of Lucent Email: stymar@agcs.com Phone: 623-582-7323 FAX: 623-581-4884 Company: http://www.agcs.com Personal: http://www.swlink.net/~styma