On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:56:35 +1100, you wrote:> >Hello. I have been looking at smbclient source code and it seems to use >gethostbyname first to try to resolve a server name and then tries WINS. > >In a dial-in-to-the-ISP situation where the ISP runs the DNS, this may be >a "gotcha" - particularly as we want to use DHCP for PCs and want to print >to a printer attached to one of those PCs with smbclient. > >Am I reading this correctly? Has anyone made this combination work >without dialing the ISP for every print job? >Try setting 'dns proxy = no' in smb.conf, this should solve your problems. Either this or setting up your local caching DNS server.
At 15:56 24-11-97 +1100, you wrote:>Hello. I have been looking at smbclient source code and it seems to use >gethostbyname first to try to resolve a server name and then tries WINS. > >In a dial-in-to-the-ISP situation where the ISP runs the DNS, this may be >a "gotcha" - particularly as we want to use DHCP for PCs and want to print >to a printer attached to one of those PCs with smbclient. > >Am I reading this correctly? Has anyone made this combination work >without dialing the ISP for every print job? > >-- David Bullock > Loftus Computing Services > davidb@loftuscomp.com.auYou know, this keeps coming up. Why are folks so scared of running secondary DNS servers? It is *exactly* for the reasons outlined herein that you'd want to have a secondary DNS, at least one, within every sub-net which is isolated by low-speed/high-cost connections. Even when the subnet-subnet connection is via LAN, each subnet should have a server running a secondary DNS, at the minimum. It takes all of 10 minutes to setup a named.boot file, and run named, on your samba server. If such a machine were to be a local forwarder then you could build up a pretty large cache and prevent unnecessary modem connects, from named queries. You'd also speed up local DNS lookups immensly. I run DNS on each Linux server, as a performance booster, just to minimize that machines LAN traffic. In my case, I am modem-connected, but I run my own primary DNS and two local secondary DNS. Lookups, for machines within my class C, are blazing fast. Lookups, for machines which are in my forwarder's cache, are almost as fast. Lookup, for machines which I've never queried before, are measured in seconds. My LAN is 10base2, thin-net. For this reason, I also "prime the pump" the all the TLD zone information, from the InterNIC. I refresh these files at the same time as my root.cache, which is about once per quarter. Even if your ISP is controlling your DNS, a practice that I do *not* recommend, for business, not technical, reasons, it would still behoove you to run a local secondary DNS. There are no security issues. Samba wouldn't be the only beneficiary of this performance improvement. Just about every other machine, in the same sub-net, will improve due to faster, local, lookups. _________________________________________________ Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. Colorado Springs, CO - Livermore, CA - Morgan Hill, CA Domain Administrator (MHSC2-DOM) Administrative and Technical contact ____________________________________________ InterNIC Id: MHSC hostmaster (HM239-ORG) e-mail: mailto:hostmaster@mhsc.com web -pages: http://www.mhsc.com/
David,>Hello. I have been looking at smbclient source code and it seems to use >gethostbyname first to try to resolve a server name and then tries WINS.I have long suspected this. There appears (from my simpleton users view) to be no consistency within the Samba code on name resolution. smbclient and nmblookup can give veryt different answers to the same sorts of questions. And as for what nmbd does ........ I've mentioned it on this list before and had 'dns proxy = no' suggested to me as a fix, but I'm still running 1.9.16p11 at the moment. I also suspect that this setting will make no difference to smbclient. I still believe it ought to be possible to have utterly separate and distinct NetBIOS and DNS namespaces on the same LAN, but I guess the Samba team doesn't see it that way (and it may well be for very good reasons, but no-one's explained them to me yet). Assuming your DHCP server hands out a (local) WINS server address, then (I feel) you should be able to get your MS-clients to use your local print server AOK. Since smbclient uses it's own idiosyncratic way of resolving server names, you're probably stuck with the dial-up mess. Come on Samba team. Build a single universal NetBIOS resolver module and use it consistenly across the whole Samba product. Put in the ability for it to use the DNS as a _backup_ service if neccesary, but make that a turn-offable option. Please. Mac Assistant Systems Adminstrator @nibsc.ac.uk Work: +44 1707 654753 x 285 Everything else: +44 956 237670 (anytime)
Hello. I have been looking at smbclient source code and it seems to use gethostbyname first to try to resolve a server name and then tries WINS. In a dial-in-to-the-ISP situation where the ISP runs the DNS, this may be a "gotcha" - particularly as we want to use DHCP for PCs and want to print to a printer attached to one of those PCs with smbclient. Am I reading this correctly? Has anyone made this combination work without dialing the ISP for every print job? -- David Bullock Loftus Computing Services davidb@loftuscomp.com.au