Other than the original 6.8 release version 3.6.23-33, samba has not been functioning correctly for me under 6.8. The symptoms are that about 6-7 days after starting the server, users start complaining that they can no longer open documents on their share. Upon inspection, I find several, sometimes nearly a dozen smb processes owned by a single user, on top of those run under root. Stopping the service does not stop these processes. They are only killable with SIGKILL, and after that, a service restart does not result in a functioning service, i.e. connections are refused, which can be verified easily with smbclient. The only cure is a server reboot. And it is not the same user id every time it happens. Useful logs of any type are not available. I have tested -35 and -36, both show the same behaviour. This is a production server and I have no time for tinkering; downgrading to -33 and blocking samba updates is the only workaround for now.
> Other than the original 6.8 release version 3.6.23-33, samba has not been > functioning correctly for me under 6.8. > > The symptoms are that about 6-7 days after starting the server, users start > complaining that they can no longer open documents on their share. Upon > inspection, I find several, sometimes nearly a dozen smb processes owned > by a single user, on top of those run under root. Stopping the service does > not stop these processes. They are only killable with SIGKILL, and after that, a > service restart does not result in a functioning service, i.e. connections are > refused, which can be verified easily with smbclient. The only cure is a server > reboot. And it is not the same user id every time it happens. Useful logs of > any type are not available. > > I have tested -35 and -36, both show the same behaviour. This is a production > server and I have no time for tinkering; downgrading to -33 and blocking > samba updates is the only workaround for now.1. What is your output of testparm? 2. If you run top, are any Samba related processes (winbindd, smbd, etc) consuming excessively high amounts of CPU? 3. Have you considered cranking up or enabling logging to obtain some useful log info? 4. Has this Samba server run correctly in the past? If so, has anything changed recently? 5. You probably already know this but Samba 3.6.x is ancient. Have you considered running Samba 4.x? Centos 6 repos have Samba 4.2.10 packages. 6. Have you checked for corrupted Samba *.tbd files? Consider running tdbbackup: https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/tdbbackup.8.html Andrew
> 1. What is your output of testparm?No errors or warnings, apart from rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384)> 2. If you run top, are any Samba related processes (winbindd, smbd, etc) consuming excessively high amounts of CPU?I did not observe this, although the machine was running at a load of 1+ with no apparent culprit.> 3. Have you considered cranking up or enabling logging to obtain some useful log info?Considered, yes, executed, no ;-)> 4. Has this Samba server run correctly in the past? If so, has anything changed recently?Yes, it always has, and works perfectly with -33. Timestamp on smb.conf shows it was last modified under 3.6.23-24, followed by updates to -25, -30, -35. With trial and error, I settled on -33 as last working version.> 5. You probably already know this but Samba 3.6.x is ancient. Have you considered running Samba 4.x? Centos 6 repos have Samba 4.2.10 packages.Samba 4.x is an intimidating piece of software. If it can perfrom the same function and use the same config, I'm willing to try it.> 6. Have you checked for corrupted Samba *.tbd files? Consider running tdbbackup: > https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/tdbbackup.8.htmlSee 4. .tdb files look ok and tdbbackup gives no errors.