Hi,
I have got problem with samba 2.2.5a and Mac OS X 10.2.6.
I my network the samba is working great, but when I connected
the Mac system, I can see on it every file with size 16 MB.
So when I try to burn 50 files 1 kB each, I can't because
MacOS is taking size 16 MB of each. When I try to burn the same
files from windows sharing, there every file have got size 4 kb,
so it is ok.Where should be problem? It is not easy to try
newer version of samba there, so I will try upgrade only if you say that it
will help. Thanks for any answer.
Milan Roubal
roubal@a-open.cz
Most of the support for SMB in OS-X is centered around the Samba 3.0x tree, not 2.x. FYI- Here the relevent section of my smb.conf for OS-X clients: # OS-X Additions ; UTF-8 encoding to match Baltra patched Netatalk (OS-9 clients) unix charset = UTF8 unicode = yes ; dumb down that charset to prevent OS-X from getting confused by some chars dos charset = ASCII ; Allows you to save your password on the client (OS-X as well as WinXP) encrypt passwords = yes smb passwd file = /usr/local/samba/private/smbpasswd ; Hide some irrelevent files veto files = /Temporary Items/Network Trash Folder/TheFindByContentFolder/TheVolumeSettingsFolder/ ; When deleting, remove those hidden veto files as well. delete veto files = yes # End of OS-X Additions Phil http://www.baltra.org Milan Roubal wrote:>Hi, >I have got problem with samba 2.2.5a and Mac OS X 10.2.6. >I my network the samba is working great, but when I connected >the Mac system, I can see on it every file with size 16 MB. >So when I try to burn 50 files 1 kB each, I can't because >MacOS is taking size 16 MB of each. When I try to burn the same >files from windows sharing, there every file have got size 4 kb, >so it is ok.Where should be problem? It is not easy to try >newer version of samba there, so I will try upgrade only if you say that it >will help. Thanks for any answer. > Milan Roubal > roubal@a-open.cz > > >
Sorry, let me back up a little: I may have not answered your original question. The file sizes shown in OS-X are guessed 'physical' sizes. If you 'get info' (command-i) on a file, it will show you the actual file size in parentheses. The size in parentheses is what counts for most uses (like copying or CD burning). It looks like OS-X (or is this Samba?) is using the wrong block size (256k?) to calculate the total physical file size. Here's a sample file I have on my server (remember that Mac's actually have two seperate files on the server for both data and resource forks): [root@drtheopolis raid]# stat adobejs.txt File: "adobejs.txt" Size: 364 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 Regular File Device: 901h/2305d Inode: 60 Links: 1 Access: (0666/-rw-rw-rw-) Uid: ( 501/ edge) Gid: ( 501/ edge) Access: Wed Jul 2 11:58:33 2003 Modify: Wed Jul 2 11:58:33 2003 Change: Mon Sep 22 16:29:25 2003 [root@drtheopolis raid]# stat ._adobejs.txt File: "._adobejs.txt" Size: 1536 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 Regular File Device: 901h/2305d Inode: 61 Links: 1 Access: (0666/-rw-rw-rw-) Uid: ( 501/ edge) Gid: ( 501/ edge) Access: Wed Sep 24 15:35:14 2003 Modify: Mon Sep 22 16:29:25 2003 Change: Mon Sep 22 16:29:25 2003 It seems like it should say that it takes up 8K in harddrive space and not 1MB. Does anyone know where this conversion get mangled? In any case, when I copy this file to the Mac, it suddenly 'shrinks' to the appropriate physical size of 8k (presumably because my local HD also has block sizes of 4K). Regarding your other question, Baltra is a patch for Netatalk which makes Netatalk store/access files in an OS-X style (vs. the proprietary way Netatalk does). It does UTF8 encoding using the 'iconv' library (I think Samba uses the same lib). That way the file names actually look the same for everyone (including Windows folks) and the resource forks are preserved regardless of whether you use SMB or AFP (or NFS for that matter). You can get more info on it here: http://www.baltra.org It's been 'beta' for a long time because there haven't been many changes or complaints. From my experience, it's been stable, but it's always a use-at-your-own-risk thing. Phil Milan Roubal wrote:>Thanx for answer, it might help. I will try to upgrade to the latest 3.0.rc >release >ane I will use some of your configs too. What is Baltra patched Netatalk? >Its patched for UTF8? Where can i find it? Is it safe for using in >production >enviroment? Do you have any Windows machines in your network? How they >handle UTF8? > Thanx for your help. > Milan Roubal > > >