Nikki.Harris@unilever.com
1997-Nov-19 12:37 UTC
Different Client Access and locking problems
Dear SAMBA Team,
I have installed SAMBA on one of our HP-UX boxes running HP-UX 10.01
and locking is working beautifully between the NT clients. I do
however have a problem with different client access locking problems.
I'll try and explain!
I currently have lots of Window for Workgroup 3.11 clients running a
product called PCTCP which allows them to connect to a NFS HP-UX file
system,via IP Stack, where all the Users home and shared data is
stored.
I have the challenge (?) of moving all our User PC's to NT whilst
leaving the users data stored on the HP-UX box. SAMBA has so far
proved to be the best solution for allowing NT clients to access the
data on a HP-UX box ! Wonderful, brilliant!!!!
There is only one problem during the migration phase I will have both
PCTCP clients and NT clients accessing the same data on the HP-UX box
and what I cannot get to work is the locking between the 2 client
access modes , PCTCP via IP/NFS and SMB via SAMBA.
Have you heard of this problem before or have you any clues as to
configuration that may help?
Both products, PCTCP and SAMBA, in the documentation talk about using
the rpc.lockd process, but write to different log file - any ideas
would be gratefully received and I am sure that we could arrange Pizza
delivery to Australia from the rainy shores of England!
Many Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
Kind Regards
Nikki Harris
> > Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:42:17 +0000 > From: Karl Royer <karl_royer@sandwich.pfizer.com> > To: samba@samba.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re:Hosts disappearing from browser list > Message-ID: <3472D099.559C@sandwich.pfizer.com> > > Since upgrading our samba servers on all our Unix machines > (Solaris 2.5.1 and 2.6 an Sun Servers) to versions 1.9.17p2 and p4 > we observe the "Hosts disappearing from browser list" problem. > > In patch level 2 (1.9.17p2) an error was logged in the log.nmb file, > "WINS server did not respond to name registration!" > > When samba is first started the Hosts are browseable on 95 and NT, > but after a period of time they dissapear from our WINS server. > If nmbd is restarted they temporarily reappear. > > The setup is as follows, > > >workgroup = SANDWICH-CR > >domain controller = san-dom-02 > >os level = 0 > >preferred master = no > >wins support = no > >wins proxy = yes > >wins server = san-dom-07 > >local master = no > >server string = CR Sandwich Workstation (%h) (Samba %v) > >username map = /etc/samba/username.map > >password server = san-dom-02 > >password level = 2 > >security = server > >default service = homes > >netbios name = maxwell > >browseable = yes > > > This problem has been observed by other people, > > >From: Pat Allen <pat@mbari143.mbari.org> > >To: "'samba@samba.anu.edu.au'" <samba@samba.anu.edu.au> > >Subject: Hosts disappearing from browser list > >Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:46:48 -0800 > > > >Hi everyone, > > > >I'm scratching my head on this one. I'm running 1.9.17p2 on several > >HP-UX 10.2 systems. Everything works great when samba is first started. > >The systems show up in the browser as you would expect them to. Over the > >course of time, they disappear from the browser window. You can still > >get to them via the Find Computer option but not through the browser. > >I've got > >socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_KEEPALIVE > > > >I've even tried setting the keep alive value to 60 to see if that would > >help. But no luck.... > > > >Killing the samba processes and restarting them will succeed in getting > >the server back into the browser list. Does anyone have any >suggestions? > >THANKS! > > > And.... > > >Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:07:09 +0100 > >From: Rainer Hauck <hauck@informatik.uni-muenchen.de> > >To: samba@samba.anu.edu.au > >Subject: Server disappearing from Browselist > > > >Hi, > > > >I recently installed 1.9.17p4 (updated from 1.9.17(p0)). It helped me > >solve a few problems I didn't expect but it somehow broke my nmbd: > > > >Every now and then my Samba-Server disappears from the Browselist. The > >only way to get him on the Browselist again is to restart nmbd. > > > >Anyone else seen this? > > > >Any hints to get around it (apart from going back to 1.9.17p0)?? > > > >Thanks and Bye, > > > >Rainer Hauck > > > I tried 1.9.17p0 and it was okay, so the break was moving to p2. The > negative response fix in p4 removes the "WINS server not respond..." > warning message, but we still have non-browseable servers. > > Can anyone help ??? > > Karl William Royer. >ok karl, I had the same trouble and fixed it very kludgily set up a cron job that kill's and restarts nmbd every hour. I know this sounds silly but nmbd stops accepting requests. it occurs (to my knowledge) only on p4 If you do that then there is a slight chance someone might be logging in at exactly the same time that the job is killed but we've got 60+ clients on this network and I have had no trouble with them. thats the best I can do for you though. -sv
You wrote:> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 15:29:50 -0700 > From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@obgyn.unm.edu> > To: samba@samba.anu.edu.au > Subject: Replacing an NT Domain > Message-ID: <19971118152950.47445@obgyn.unm.edu> > > Hello, > > We are going to be using samba in our NT network as a file server. Thanks > to everyone who is involved with Samba -- it's really neat now that I have > it working properly. I especially like the ability to block requests based > on IP#! :-) My question is whether you guys know of any way to get rid of our > NT PDC but still have the ability to log in as any user in the department from > any NT workstation.There are basically three approaches: 0) Unix authentication on unix, aka security = user 1) NT authentication on NT, aka security = server 2) NT authentication on Unix, courtesy of Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton 3) Other authentication, including Kerberos The elegant way is #2, but it's relatively new. It allows Samba to be a full-fledged master server of an NT authentication domain, speaking native NT. (Note I'm not necessarily using NT terminology: I can never remember which kind of master rules what (:-)) It allows you to mix Samba and NT seamlessly, and only learn a bit of Unix to administer a lot of functionality for Windows and NT clients. I tend to call it the ``Just Another Server'' scenario. An easy way, if you're an NT person, is #1. You don't have Samba be a godlike being, you just tell it god's hostname (:-)). Samba forwards authentication requests to an NT machine, which does the work. You still have the equivalent of access control using the smb.conf and possible dummy entries in the /etc/passwd file. I call this the ``Passthrough'' scenario. An easy way, if you're a Unix person, is #0, having accounts on Unix, not using NT authentication domains, and having Unix do the authentication, using whatever authentication you've got there (which included PAM, /etc/passwd. yp, nis, kerberos or blue pages). To address your specific questions... Question: Answer: 0: Unix 1: NT 2: PDC 3: Other a) Can samba reliably process NT login requests yet, fakes it yes yes no b) is there an alternate way of replicating account data between workstations? many yes yes yes c) we don't have to have a Microsoft PDC processing login requests yes no no yes d) is having an NT PDC devoted to processing login requests and storing profiles currently the best solution? no yes yes no e) I would much rather manage user accounts using Samba and Linux yes no yes yes f) I don't want to have to give up the convenience of having a domain. (If you mean having centralized control...) yes yes yes yes I mildly recommend 0 and 2: they fit pure-unix and pure-nt environments best. Mixing worlds and assumptions leads to errors, and to mere nuisances like trying to remember which of the three kinds of domain and four kinds of master you're talking about at any given moment (:-)) Zero and one, by the way, are popular enough you'll get lots of advice (:-)) --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify some people 185 Ellerslie Ave., | and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain Willowdale, Ontario | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com M2N 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
1997-Nov-19 16:44 UTC
Different Client Access and locking problems
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 Nikki.Harris@unilever.com wrote:> Dear SAMBA Team, > > I have installed SAMBA on one of our HP-UX boxes running HP-UX 10.01 > and locking is working beautifully between the NT clients. I do > however have a problem with different client access locking problems. > I'll try and explain! > > I currently have lots of Window for Workgroup 3.11 clients running a > product called PCTCP which allows them to connect to a NFS HP-UX file > system,via IP Stack, where all the Users home and shared data is > stored. > > I have the challenge (?) of moving all our User PC's to NT whilst > leaving the users data stored on the HP-UX box. SAMBA has so far > proved to be the best solution for allowing NT clients to access the > data on a HP-UX box ! Wonderful, brilliant!!!! > > There is only one problem during the migration phase I will have both > PCTCP clients and NT clients accessing the same data on the HP-UX box > and what I cannot get to work is the locking between the 2 client > access modes , PCTCP via IP/NFS and SMB via SAMBA. > > Have you heard of this problem before or have you any clues as to > configuration that may help? > > Both products, PCTCP and SAMBA, in the documentation talk about using > the rpc.lockd process, but write to different log file - any ideas > would be gratefully received and I am sure that we could arrange Pizza > delivery to Australia from the rainy shores of England!hi nikki, pizza? from england to australia, and then back again? damn. it's going to have its own extra toppings by the time it gets to cambridge... right. we replaced PC-NFS 5.0 under DOS/WfWg 3.11 at my former place of work. we had exactly the same problem: file locking issues between the NFS daemon and the samba daemon. files shared between myself (using NT 3.51 accessing samba) and my colleague (using, ha-ha, WfWg and PCNFS), were inconsistent. as we were using SourceSafe (not the visual version), we had to switch off "native locking" and use the built-in locking mechanism in SourceSafe. this was sufficient. regarding the documentation of the use of rpc.lockd, the documentation states that samba uses the unix fcntl() call, which on _some_ unixen uses rpc.lockd, and furthermore that implementations of rpc.lockd can be particularly bug-ridden... the documentation also mentions that you might want to try "strick locking = yes", which may have a significant read/write performance hit. regards, luke <a href="mailto:lkcl@switchboard.net" > Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton </a> <a href="http://mailhost.cb1.com/~lkcl"> Samba Consultancy and Support </a>
Hi, I had installed samba-1.9.18p3 on our Solaris 2.5.1, everything works fine except the printing. If I set up the 'print command = /usr/bin/lp -P%p %s', and 'path = /tmp', then I can only print the file to /tmp directory, however if I didn't set up the 'print command' the everhthing will be fine. I am just a little bit wondering how does the samba know which command to use for the printing if I didn't set up the 'print command' ? Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. Siwei Zhang Division of Research Kaiser Permanente.