Hi all, I have a samba installation v1.9.17p4 on a Solaris 2.5.1 box on a different subnet to our network. A short while ago, the box grew extremely loaded (we don't know why, but we don't suspect samba), and people (Win95) were no longer able to browse shares, or even telnet in. I restarted the Solaris box in the hope things would settle down, but still noone (Win95) could browse shares. I upgraded samba to v1.9.18alpha9. Still noone could browse shares. I reverted back to v1.9.17p4, still none could browse shares. - In all cases, both smbd and nmbd processes were killed. - In all cases, smbclient from a linux box on our network successfully browsed shares 100%. Anyone know what on earth is going on? A general question: Why is samba so unreliable? I have used different versions of samba for over two years, and between then and now samba has been very unreliable, and doesn't look at becoming more reliable now. BUT - having said this I have almost never had the slightest problem with samba clients connecting to samba shares, all my problems occur Win95 -> samba. BUT having said THAT, Win95 -> Win95 works fine. Just what standard does samba use? The same as microsoft's? Regards, Graham -- ----------------------------------------- graham@vwv.com "There's a moon VWV Interactive over Bourbon Street tonight...
hi graham, what size are your log files at, in the var directory? there was a problem with wrap-around on the log files, which we discovered recently (unfortunately, the error message itself was being truncated :-) :-) lukes On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Graham Leggett wrote:> Hi all, > > I have a samba installation v1.9.17p4 on a Solaris 2.5.1 box on a > different subnet to our network. > > A short while ago, the box grew extremely loaded (we don't know why, but > we don't suspect samba), and people (Win95) were no longer able to > browse shares, or even telnet in. > > I restarted the Solaris box in the hope things would settle down, but > still noone (Win95) could browse shares. I upgraded samba to > v1.9.18alpha9. Still noone could browse shares. I reverted back to > v1.9.17p4, still none could browse shares. > > - In all cases, both smbd and nmbd processes were killed. > - In all cases, smbclient from a linux box on our network successfully > browsed shares 100%. > > Anyone know what on earth is going on? > > A general question: Why is samba so unreliable? I have used different > versions of samba for over two years, and between then and now samba has > been very unreliable, and doesn't look at becoming more reliable now.hm. interesting. has anyone else had similar reliability problems with Solaris 2.5.1? have you got any patches applied? how much memory do you have in your server, graham?> BUT - having said this I have almost never had the slightest problem > with samba clients connecting to samba shares, all my problems occur > Win95 -> samba. BUT having said THAT, Win95 -> Win95 works fine. > > Just what standard does samba use? The same as microsoft's?well, the original project was when andrew packet-traced an SMB server (i think it was a DEC pathworks server) without even knowing what SMB was, several years ago. the X-Open group published an SMB standard (in 1983, i think). IBM implemented this standard to the letter; microsoft made their own "improvements". microsoft kept their development of SMB quiet for about ten to fifteen years. in august 96, they launched the CIFS initiative. just a few weeks after Sun announced WebNFS. so, all of us who have CIFS clients and servers - microsoft included - have had to deal with the increase in understanding of the CIFS protocol, and attempt to maintain compatibility with other CIFS vendors (hence, the CIFS workshops). the samba team's experience at reverse-engineering this protocol, almost exclusively from packet traces, has actually *helped* microsoft to write up their CIFS documentation. that's not to say, that with a document running at around 250 pages, with supplementary documentation at approximately another 100 pages, that every implementation's going to be perfect... luke <a href="mailto:lkcl@switchboard.net" > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton </a> <a href="http://mailhost.cb1.com/~lkcl"> Lynx2.7-friendly Home Page </a> <br><b> "Apply the Laws of Nature to your environment because your environment applies the Laws of Nature to you" </b>
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:> what size are your log files at, in the var directory? there was a > problem with wrap-around on the log files, which we discovered recently > (unfortunately, the error message itself was being truncated :-) :-)I believe that particular problem is fixed in v1.9.17p4.> On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Graham Leggett wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have a samba installation v1.9.17p4 on a Solaris 2.5.1 box on a > > different subnet to our network.Charlie Brady - Telstra |internet: cbrady@ind.tansu.com.au Network Products |Snail : Locked Bag 6581, GPO Sydney 2001 Australia Platform Technologies |Physical : Lvl 2, 175 Liverpool St, Sydney 2000 IN-Sub Unit - Sydney | Phone: +61 2 9206 3470 Fax: +61 2 9281 1301
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Graham Leggett wrote:> A general question: Why is samba so unreliable? I have used different > versions of samba for over two years, and between then and now samba has > been very unreliable, and doesn't look at becoming more reliable now. > BUT - having said this I have almost never had the slightest problem > with samba clients connecting to samba shares, all my problems occur > Win95 -> samba. BUT having said THAT, Win95 -> Win95 works fine.FWIW, Samba's been rock solid here no matter what I throw at it. Same country - so this is a confirmation that it's not local conditions killing you ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-- Louis Mandelstam Tel +27 83 229-0712 Symphony /|\ /|\ Linux systems integration http://sr.co.za Research { } { } Johannesburg, South Africa mailto:louis@sr.co.za (Pty)Ltd {___} {___}
At 08:27 PM 11/7/97 +1100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@switchboard.net> wrote:>hm. interesting. has anyone else had similar reliability problems with >Solaris 2.5.1? have you got any patches applied?We have 2.5.1 with only security related patches applied. We have recently discovered the symptoms of some memory leaks which appear to be OS related. The symptoms were pitiful performance and failure to load large images caused by limited available RAM and limited available swap. So our GB of total memory was down to 10% of that. We plan to try patching up, or moving to 2.6. We also plan to separate swap and /tmp which are by default together (by modifying vfstab).