Hai, Lately I am encountering a weird issue with spool queue under winxp and samba+cups. It seems winxp puts all the information of printjobs spooled to a given printer exported with samba in its local printer spool queue of that printer (allso of other users in the domain) and never marks them as done/expired . After a certain amount of time there are so many jobs in the queue the workstation refuses to print to that printer. It is impossible to remove the printjobs or otherwise manipulate the local spoolqueue. The latest site where I maintain a samba file/print server exhibited this issue after I upgraded from samba-3.0.4 to samba-3.0.10 with following config : smb.conf : [global] ........ load printers = yes # printing = bsd printing = cups printcap name = cups [print$] comment = Printer Driver Download Area path = /usr/local/shares/drivers browseable = yes guest ok = yes read only = yes write list = @sys, root, @wheel [printers] comment = All Printers path = /tmp browseable = No printable = Yes guest ok = Yes read only = Yes print command = lpr -P%p %s Any pointers are appreciated TIA Wim Bakker
Gerald (Jerry) Carter
2005-Jan-07 17:40 UTC
[Samba] Spool queue issue winxp and samba-3.0.x
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Samba List Unetix wrote: | Hai, | | Lately I am encountering a weird issue with spool queue | under winxp and samba+cups. try the printing patch at http://www.samba.org/~jerry/patches/post-3.0.10/ I've got one report that its will correct the problem and one that the problem still exists. YMMV. cheers, jerry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB3slyIR7qMdg1EfYRAlbUAKCEAWIeoud3ngy1FwVJKtjJ3FzVGwCff5SK ZH8G6CHA/7aEDw/4nr/hs0E=8a8e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Seemingly Similar Threads
- Spool queue issue winxp and samba-3.0.x
- Automatic selection pf printers
- W2k/w98 don't see printers on samba-3.0.0beta2/3 in "Add Printer" dialogue
- Serious problem with samba-3.0.0beta* and printing
- Bug in "force group" parameter, or group membership checking?