We are also running 1.9.17p4 on an Ultra 450, 2 procs, 512 MB, Solaris 2.6. We have had several problems that sound like the same as reported below. We usually have around 100 smbd processes running. Occasionally, the machine just locks up (or seems to). We sent the system crash files to sun -- and they are initially saying there were 316 samba processes running at that time. It looks like it ran away and started paging its life away. I'm planning to cut over to 1.9.18p3 in the next day or two, but I have reservations. We have another machine (ultra 140, solaris 2.6) that was running 1.9.17p2. When I upgraded it to 1.9.18p3, it just didn't work for a number of hours. We are doing 'security=server' and passing the authentication on to our NT PDC. The error messages sounded like the NT server was only giving 'guest' authentication, which I guess means that normal encrypted authentication had failed. When I was using smbstatus, It kept complaining about there being no STATUS..LCK. I tried killing the samba processes, etc. etc. I never touched the config file. After a while (quite a while), it just started working. Could there be some NT issue at work here? Maybe our NT PDC thinks that we've changed hardware -- and it needs to timeout? I would really like to know before I upgrade our main server. I can't afford to let that one sit out in the cold for an unspecified amount of time. I had a very similar experience when I ugpraded the first machine from 1.9.17 to 1.9.17p2 (6+ months ago). Here's the global portion of our smb.conf, if it is any help [global] wins support = no wins server = foo.engr.orst.edu debug level = 1 security = server password server = ntpdc preserve case = yes short preserve case = yes case sensitive = no log file = /private/samba/var/log.smb locking = yes lock directory = /private/samba/var/locks share modes = yes guest account = samba workgroup = ENGINEERING server string = Engineering Unix gateway - %h domain master = no local master = no preferred master = no os level = 0 fake oplocks = yes Thanks for any help Tom Lieuallen Oregon State University> Hi all, > > We are running samba 1.9.17p4 on two Sun Ultra 450, Solaris 2.6 > with all recommended patches applied. > Both macines have two CPUs and are working just fine - no problems > with going from 2.5.1 to 2.6. > > Samba binaries were compiled under solaris 2.6 using gcc 2.7.2.3 > I got the compiler as a 2.6 package from > http://www.mbp.duke.edu:80/christensen/sitesNG.html > > Olga > > You wrote > | We're having problems running Samba on a dual-processor Sparcserver 10 > | running Solaris 2.6. The problem is that samba seems to spawn multiple > | processes for each connection and generally consume more and more > | resources until the system runs out of memory and swap, or just > | generally becomes completely unresponsive. > | > | We have seen load averages of 500+ on this machine as a result.
Jeremy Allison
1998-Feb-27 18:02 UTC
Problems with Samba and Solaris 2.6 (and STATUS..LCK)
Tom Lieuallen wrote:> > > I'm planning to cut over to 1.9.18p3 in the next day or two, but > I have reservations. > > We have another machine (ultra 140, solaris 2.6) that was running > 1.9.17p2. When I upgraded it to 1.9.18p3, it just didn't work > for a number of hours. We are doing 'security=server' and passing > the authentication on to our NT PDC. The error messages sounded > like the NT server was only giving 'guest' authentication, which I > guess means that normal encrypted authentication had failed. >Read the 1.9.18p3 release notes, especially the bit about the 'networkstation user login' parameter with security=server.> When I was using smbstatus, It kept complaining about there being > no STATUS..LCK. I tried killing the samba processes, etc. etc. > I never touched the config file. After a while (quite a while), > it just started working. >Make sure you are using -DFAST_SHARE_MODES. I remember someone seeing this when they were using an older smbstatus with a new release (I think, I can't remember the exact details).> I would really like to know before I upgrade our main server. I > can't afford to let that one sit out in the cold for an unspecified > amount of time. I had a very similar experience when I ugpraded the > first machine from 1.9.17 to 1.9.17p2 (6+ months ago). >You should be ok so long as you read the release notes *all of them* - I try and document everything that changed (I do a context diff between releases and use that as the basis as the WHATSNEW.txt bugfix list so it should be accurate). I try and work from the principle of giving least suprises to someone using Samba but sometimes changes in behavior just can't be helped. That's why we document them :-). Many people are running Samba 1.9.18p3 on Solaris (Sun included :-) so you should be ok. Hope this helps, Jeremy Allison, Samba Team. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Buying an operating system without source is like buying a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions. --------------------------------------------------------