I have problems with browsing, AFAI see ... There are 2 Samba 3.0-hosts in the subnet 192.168.16. called server and backup. The workgroup is buero. server has 2 NICs with the ips 192.168.16.200 and 192.168.16.201. backup has one NIC with ip 192.168.16.112. server is configured with the options: local master=yes preferred master=yes os type=40 backup with: os type=20 local master=yes (to provide backup-browser-service). interfaces parameter is not set. I want Samba to use both NICs on server. testparm runs ok on each host. Look at these lines:> server:~ # nmblookup -M buero > querying buero on 192.168.16.255 > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > server:~ #So I get two answers over the localhost-interface, I assume. Why is it two times the .201-ip? If I try the same from backup:> backup:~ # nmblookup -M buero > added interface ip=192.168.16.112 bcast=192.168.16.255 nmask=255.255.255.0 > querying buero on 192.168.16.255 > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d>I get four responses .... Question: Should the backup:/etc/hosts contain both ips of server like: 192.168.16.200 server 192.168.16.201 server How should this be handled? I know this is another topic but has possibly the same reason:> backup:~ # tail /var/log/messages > Oct 27 15:20:06 backup sshd[21744]: Could not reverse map address 192.168.16.201. > Oct 27 15:20:06 backup sshd[21744]: Accepted rsa for root from ::ffff:192.168.16.201 port 46587Reverse DNS ... I will look that up, I promise ... I think that ... this ...> server:~ # tail /var/log/messages > Oct 27 15:22:19 server nmbd[1318]: find_response_record: response packet id 19864 received with no matching record. > Oct 27 15:22:20 server nmbd[1318]: [2003/10/27 15:22:20, 0] nmbd/nmbd_responserecordsdb.c:find_response_record(235) > Oct 27 15:22:20 server nmbd[1318]: find_response_record: response packet id 19863 received with no matching record. > Oct 27 15:22:20 server nmbd[1318]: [2003/10/27 15:22:20, 0] nmbd/nmbd_responserecordsdb.c:find_response_record(235)... and this ...> backup:~ # tail /var/log/samba/log.nmbd > query_name_response: Multiple (3) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > query_name_response: Multiple (4) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > query_name_response: Multiple (2) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > query_name_response: Multiple (3) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > query_name_response: Multiple (4) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > backup:~ #... results from the same wrong configuration . Am I right? What should I do about it? Thank you, Stefan G. Weichinger mailto:monitor@oops.co.at
Err no no no... You cannot have the same computer (netBIOS name) on two different IP addresses. Maybe if you tell us what you are trying to achieve with this bizzare setup, we can advise a way to achieve it. On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 03:46:06PM +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:> > I have problems with browsing, AFAI see ... > > There are 2 Samba 3.0-hosts in the subnet 192.168.16. called server > and backup. The workgroup is buero. > > server has 2 NICs with the ips 192.168.16.200 and 192.168.16.201. > backup has one NIC with ip 192.168.16.112. > > server is configured with the options: > > local master=yes > preferred master=yes > os type=40 > > backup with: > os type=20 > local master=yes > > (to provide backup-browser-service). > > interfaces parameter is not set. > I want Samba to use both NICs on server. > > testparm runs ok on each host. > > Look at these lines: > > > server:~ # nmblookup -M buero > > querying buero on 192.168.16.255 > > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > > server:~ # > > So I get two answers over the localhost-interface, I assume. Why is it > two times the .201-ip? > > If I try the same from backup: > > > backup:~ # nmblookup -M buero > > added interface ip=192.168.16.112 bcast=192.168.16.255 nmask=255.255.255.0 > > querying buero on 192.168.16.255 > > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > > Got a positive name query response from 192.168.16.201 ( 192.168.16.201 ) > > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > > 192.168.16.201 buero<1d> > > I get four responses .... > > Question: Should the backup:/etc/hosts contain both ips of server > like: > > 192.168.16.200 server > 192.168.16.201 server > > How should this be handled? > > I know this is another topic but has possibly the same reason: > > > backup:~ # tail /var/log/messages > > Oct 27 15:20:06 backup sshd[21744]: Could not reverse map address 192.168.16.201. > > Oct 27 15:20:06 backup sshd[21744]: Accepted rsa for root from ::ffff:192.168.16.201 port 46587 > > Reverse DNS ... I will look that up, I promise ... > I think that > > ... this ... > > > server:~ # tail /var/log/messages > > Oct 27 15:22:19 server nmbd[1318]: find_response_record: response packet id 19864 received with no matching record. > > Oct 27 15:22:20 server nmbd[1318]: [2003/10/27 15:22:20, 0] nmbd/nmbd_responserecordsdb.c:find_response_record(235) > > Oct 27 15:22:20 server nmbd[1318]: find_response_record: response packet id 19863 received with no matching record. > > Oct 27 15:22:20 server nmbd[1318]: [2003/10/27 15:22:20, 0] nmbd/nmbd_responserecordsdb.c:find_response_record(235) > > ... and this ... > > > backup:~ # tail /var/log/samba/log.nmbd > > query_name_response: Multiple (3) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > > query_name_response: Multiple (4) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > > query_name_response: Multiple (2) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > > query_name_response: Multiple (3) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > > query_name_response: Multiple (4) responses received for a query on subnet 192.168.16.112 for name BUERO<1d>. > > This response was from IP 192.168.16.201, reporting an IP address of 192.168.16.201. > > backup:~ # > > ... results from the same wrong configuration . > > Am I right? What should I do about it? > > Thank you, > Stefan G. Weichinger > mailto:monitor@oops.co.at > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Hi, Rashkae, you wrote: R> Err no no no... You cannot have the same computer (netBIOS R> name) on two different IP addresses. Maybe if you tell us what you R> are trying to achieve with this bizzare setup, we can advise a way R> to achieve it. I wasn?t aware of having a bizarre setup until now ... I want Samba to use 2 NICs to improve performance. Simple as that. Reaching that goal doesn?t seem that simple ... You mean I should bond the 2 NICs? Thank you, Stefan G. Weichinger mailto:monitor@oops.co.at
Update: I found 2 old nmbd-processes still running on that server-box. They weren?t killed by the rcsmb-script and were responsible for the double answers. Still 2 answers left. Reconfigured samba to "interfaces=eth0". I will disable eth1 ASAP but right now there is still one user online I can?t kick right now. I will see if problems fade after that. I think they will. My research about bonding nics goes on. Thank you, Stefan G. Weichinger mailto:monitor@oops.co.at