samba - Jun 2004 - Browse list issues with Windows XP

To further the discussion (or lack thereof) of the browse list issues
(systems not showing up in the browse list, even though their shares are
accessable with //system/sharename) that 5 or 10 people on the list have
been having over the past month or so...

I was out to this client the other day, had the opportunity to try the few
things that had been suggested, all to no avail.  I then proceeded to join a
new machine to the domain, after I had it all set up I happened to stumble
into Network Neighborhood and to my shock and awe there was the new system
showing up (along with the server which had always been visible).  The other
workstations are still not visible however.  I went on to the server and ran
smbtree and it happily listed the shares on the server, and on the new
workstation... but no others.  

There have been no changes to the samba configuration, so that can safely be
eliminated as the cause... likewise both the new and old machines have all
updates applied, so that reduces (it's microsoft so can't guarantee that
it
eliminates completely) the chances that its caused by a microsoft patch.

I have checked wins.dat and browse.dat (browse.txt, the exact name escapes
me) and I can't see any obvious differences for the entries for the new
machine vs. the existing systems.

This should be relatively easy to troubleshoot now that I have working and
non-working examples on the same server...  if someone has suggestions of
where to look?  Is there anything in any of the .tdb files that would have
any bearing on a machine showing in network neighborhood or not?  A viewer
to peek at those files and look for any differences at all?  Any ideas? 

Thanks,
>>>>> Mike <<<<<

Check out the Computer Description field.  I found that if there is a
special character (single quote) in this field, then the PC would not
display in the browse list.

Mark
> To further the discussion (or lack thereof) of the browse list issues
> (systems not showing up in the browse list, even though their shares are
> accessable with //system/sharename) that 5 or 10 people on the list have
> been having over the past month or so...
>
> I was out to this client the other day, had the opportunity to try the few
> things that had been suggested, all to no avail.  I then proceeded to join
> a
> new machine to the domain, after I had it all set up I happened to stumble
> into Network Neighborhood and to my shock and awe there was the new system
> showing up (along with the server which had always been visible).  The
> other
> workstations are still not visible however.  I went on to the server and
> ran
> smbtree and it happily listed the shares on the server, and on the new
> workstation... but no others.
>
> There have been no changes to the samba configuration, so that can safely
> be
> eliminated as the cause... likewise both the new and old machines have all
> updates applied, so that reduces (it's microsoft so can't guarantee
that
> it
> eliminates completely) the chances that its caused by a microsoft patch.
>
> I have checked wins.dat and browse.dat (browse.txt, the exact name escapes
> me) and I can't see any obvious differences for the entries for the new
> machine vs. the existing systems.
>
> This should be relatively easy to troubleshoot now that I have working and
> non-working examples on the same server...  if someone has suggestions of
> where to look?  Is there anything in any of the .tdb files that would have
> any bearing on a machine showing in network neighborhood or not?  A viewer
> to peek at those files and look for any differences at all?  Any ideas?
>
> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mike <<<<<
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
>

The delay in XP might be due to XP using Direct Hosting, instead of NBT


Some information about Windows Direct Hosting (port 445) can be found at:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q204279

Here you will see that, by disabling port 445 (direct hosting), all traffic
reverts back to NBT.
>From what I can see, Direct Hosting is no more than SMB over TCP/IP, instead
of using NBT (NetBIOS over TCP) as an intermediary transport.

Blocking Direct Hosting should not break anything (it is merely a
'short-cut') but, once it gets implemented, it should reduce overhead on
server and network.

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Mike Cisar [mailto:mlists@starmania.net] 
Verzonden: woensdag 2 juni 2004 17:58
Aan: samba@lists.samba.org
Onderwerp: [Samba] Browse list issues with Windows XP

To further the discussion (or lack thereof) of the browse list issues
(systems not showing up in the browse list, even though their shares are
accessable with //system/sharename) that 5 or 10 people on the list have
been having over the past month or so...

I was out to this client the other day, had the opportunity to try the few
things that had been suggested, all to no avail.  I then proceeded to join a
new machine to the domain, after I had it all set up I happened to stumble
into Network Neighborhood and to my shock and awe there was the new system
showing up (along with the server which had always been visible).  The other
workstations are still not visible however.  I went on to the server and ran
smbtree and it happily listed the shares on the server, and on the new
workstation... but no others.  

There have been no changes to the samba configuration, so that can safely be
eliminated as the cause... likewise both the new and old machines have all
updates applied, so that reduces (it's microsoft so can't guarantee that
it
eliminates completely) the chances that its caused by a microsoft patch.

I have checked wins.dat and browse.dat (browse.txt, the exact name escapes
me) and I can't see any obvious differences for the entries for the new
machine vs. the existing systems.

This should be relatively easy to troubleshoot now that I have working and
non-working examples on the same server...  if someone has suggestions of
where to look?  Is there anything in any of the .tdb files that would have
any bearing on a machine showing in network neighborhood or not?  A viewer
to peek at those files and look for any differences at all?  Any ideas? 

Thanks,
>>>>> Mike <<<<<

That is interesting, I will admit that my Computer Description field does
have an apostrophy (single quote) in it.  So, if that is the case, I think
it is a bug, and as of 3.0, because I never had a problem with the
apostrophy in the Computer Description field on 2.2.8a, and Windows does not
have a problem with apostrophies in the computer description.
> Check out the Computer Description field.  I found that if there is a
> special character (single quote) in this field, then the PC would not
> display in the browse list.
>
> Mark
>
>> To further the discussion (or lack thereof) of the browse list issues
>> (systems not showing up in the browse list, even though their shares
are
>> accessable with //system/sharename) that 5 or 10 people on the list
have
>> been having over the past month or so...
>>
>> I was out to this client the other day, had the opportunity to try the
few
>> things that had been suggested, all to no avail.  I then proceeded to
join
>> a
>> new machine to the domain, after I had it all set up I happened to
stumble
>> into Network Neighborhood and to my shock and awe there was the new
system
>> showing up (along with the server which had always been visible).  The
>> other
>> workstations are still not visible however.  I went on to the server
and
>> ran
>> smbtree and it happily listed the shares on the server, and on the new
>> workstation... but no others.
>>
>> There have been no changes to the samba configuration, so that can
safely
>> be
>> eliminated as the cause... likewise both the new and old machines have
all
>> updates applied, so that reduces (it's microsoft so can't
guarantee that
>> it
>> eliminates completely) the chances that its caused by a microsoft
patch.
>>
>> I have checked wins.dat and browse.dat (browse.txt, the exact name
escapes
>> me) and I can't see any obvious differences for the entries for the
new
>> machine vs. the existing systems.
>>
>> This should be relatively easy to troubleshoot now that I have working
and
>> non-working examples on the same server...  if someone has suggestions
of
>> where to look?  Is there anything in any of the .tdb files that would
have
>> any bearing on a machine showing in network neighborhood or not?  A
viewer
>> to peek at those files and look for any differences at all?  Any ideas?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Mike <<<<<

Actually, it is a bug, bug #1221:
"It traced down to the following change from samba 2.2.x to 3.0 in
lib/util_str.c:next_token():

-               if (*s == '\"') {
+               if (*s == '\"' || *s == '\'') {
                        quoted = !quoted;
                } else {
                        len++;
                        *pbuf++ = *s;
                }

This function is used in lanman.c:get_server_info(), to
tokenize lines from browse.dat."
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1221
> That is interesting, I will admit that my Computer Description field does
> have an apostrophy (single quote) in it.  So, if that is the case, I think
> it is a bug, and as of 3.0, because I never had a problem with the
> apostrophy in the Computer Description field on 2.2.8a, and Windows does
not
> have a problem with apostrophies in the computer description.
>
>> Check out the Computer Description field.  I found that if there is a
>> special character (single quote) in this field, then the PC would not
>> display in the browse list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>> To further the discussion (or lack thereof) of the browse list
issues
>>> (systems not showing up in the browse list, even though their
shares are
>>> accessable with //system/sharename) that 5 or 10 people on the list
have
>>> been having over the past month or so...
>>>
>>> I was out to this client the other day, had the opportunity to try
the
few
>>> things that had been suggested, all to no avail.  I then proceeded
to
join
>>> a
>>> new machine to the domain, after I had it all set up I happened to
stumble
>>> into Network Neighborhood and to my shock and awe there was the new
system
>>> showing up (along with the server which had always been visible). 
The
>>> other
>>> workstations are still not visible however.  I went on to the
server and
>>> ran
>>> smbtree and it happily listed the shares on the server, and on the
new
>>> workstation... but no others.
>>>
>>> There have been no changes to the samba configuration, so that can
safely
>>> be
>>> eliminated as the cause... likewise both the new and old machines
have
all
>>> updates applied, so that reduces (it's microsoft so can't
guarantee that
>>> it
>>> eliminates completely) the chances that its caused by a microsoft
patch.
>>>
>>> I have checked wins.dat and browse.dat (browse.txt, the exact name
escapes
>>> me) and I can't see any obvious differences for the entries for
the new
>>> machine vs. the existing systems.
>>>
>>> This should be relatively easy to troubleshoot now that I have
working
and
>>> non-working examples on the same server...  if someone has
suggestions
of
>>> where to look?  Is there anything in any of the .tdb files that
would
have
>>> any bearing on a machine showing in network neighborhood or not?  A
viewer
>>> to peek at those files and look for any differences at all?  Any
ideas?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Mike <<<<<