I recently installed samba 1.9.18p8. Since then, we get the following
error:
"No domain server was available to validate your password. You may not be
able to gain access to some network resources."
after the server has been running for >48 hours. If I stop and restart the
server, everything is ok again. Our samba server is a Sun Ultra 2170
running Solaris 2.5.1.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Sally
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Sally L Goldberg | Information Technology
goldberg@saintmarys.edu | Saint Mary's College
phone: 1-219-284-4737 | Notre Dame, IN 46556
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:09:30 -0700 > From: Jeremy Allison <jallison@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com> > To: peloy@ven.ra.rockwell.com, "samba@samba.anu.edu.au" > <samba@samba.anu.edu.au> > Subject: Re: Slowdown when copying large files (PR#8617) > Message-ID: <35BCB44A.49535E32@engr.sgi.com> > > peloy@ven.ra.rockwell.com wrote: > > > > Andrew Tridgell <samba-bugs@samba.anu.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > The Windows98 explorer (and possibly other programs) > incorrectly set the > > > "sync" bit in write requests to network shares. This > causes an enormous > > > slowdown as Samba (quite correctly) does a fsync() on the > file after each > > > write. Combine this with the fact that Windows98 explorer > uses very small > > > write sizes (around 1.5k) and you get really terrible results. > > > > Andrew, but if it is Windows 98 the one that is screwing things up, > > wouldn't this slowdown be seen when the server is something > else, like > > Windows 95/NT, etc.? > > > > Apparently not - according to one of JohnT's technical > contacts at MS - doing a fsync on a file in NT isn't the > same as a UNIX fsync, but only *schedules the write to > be done* ! > > I will add this option before 1.9.18p9 ships - the only > question is - should it be on or off by default ?Is there no way to identify the client as being Win 98 and act appropriately? Shame if not. Cheers, Matt. -- Matt JD Aldridge - NEXOR Technical Analyst Email: mailto:Matt.Aldridge@NEXOR.Com Phone: +44 (0)115 952 0572 (has voicemail)
> } Apparently not - according to one of JohnT's technical > } contacts at MS - doing a fsync on a file in NT isn't the > } same as a UNIX fsync, but only *schedules the write to > } be done* ! > > So it's more like the way NFS treats syncs. Eventually... :-)I believe that NFS will not return untill the write is done. I think Jeremy's exclaimation is related to the fact the you have asked for a fsync for what is possibly a very good reason and it's not really being done.> Sounds to me like there are two issues. One, to make the > behavior consistent with NT's, perhaps only flush the stream.Making it consistent with what seems bad behaviour might be regressive.> But then, what if somebody _really_ wanted a sync done when > SMB says to do one? Is that two options?Like maybe: fsync_Seriously(f); :-)> JimBrett
> I tried put " security=server" and " password server = IUSD0" in the > smb.conf file, here IUSD0 is the PDC in the domain IUSD. But it does not > work.You could be having a problem with the "networkstation user login" thing. I run AIX 4.2.1 and WinFrame 1.7 and needed to turn this off to make "security=server" work. networkstation user login (G) This global parameter (new for 1.9.18p3) affects server level security. With this set (recommended) samba will do a full NetWkstaUserLogon to confirm that the client really should have login rights. This can cause problems with machines in trust relationships in which case you can disable it here, but be warned, we have heard that some NT machines will then allow anyone in with any password! Make sure you test it. Default: networkstation user login = yes Example: networkstation user login = no> Jialiang LiBrett