samba - Jun 2004 - Huge delays on login/first access from WinXP clients on samba 3.0.4 PDC

Hi *,

after upgrade from 2.2.8a to 3.0.4, I'm suffering from ~10 min. delays on
login/first access of a share from a WinXPpro client to a samba 3.0.4 PDC
(SuSE 9.0). This is printed in the logs:

[2004/06/16 11:58:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 11:59:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:00:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:01:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:02:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:03:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:04:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:05:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:06:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:07:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
  setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2004/06/16 12:08:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)

This effect doesn't happen with Win98SE as a domain client, or with a
WinXPpro client in workgroup mode. 

The samba packages are from the ftp.suse.com/project/samba.

I've tried to rejoin this XPpro client under a new name, with no effect.
After dismount these delays, it works as expected :-(.
>From reading the migration section in the HOWTO-Collection, I added a 
"add machine script" with the same value as "add user
script"
to smb.conf. 

Any hints are highly appreciated.

TIA,
Pete

Dear Samba citizens,

what kind of further information I can provide to get this tracked down?
This behavior really renders the samba domain controller service useless
here, but WinXP workgrouping is not an option. As another data point, w2k
also doesn't suffer from this problem.

Sorry for all this whining..

Regards,
Pete

Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
> Hi *,
> 
> after upgrade from 2.2.8a to 3.0.4, I'm suffering from ~10 min. delays
> on login/first access of a share from a WinXPpro client to a samba 3.0.4
> PDC (SuSE 9.0). This is printed in the logs:
> 
> [2004/06/16 11:58:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 11:59:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:00:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:01:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:02:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:03:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:04:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:05:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:06:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:07:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
>   setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
> [2004/06/16 12:08:20, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(288)
> 
> This effect doesn't happen with Win98SE as a domain client, or with a
> WinXPpro client in workgroup mode.
> 
> The samba packages are from the ftp.suse.com/project/samba.
> 
> I've tried to rejoin this XPpro client under a new name, with no
effect.
> After dismount these delays, it works as expected :-(.
> 
>>From reading the migration section in the HOWTO-Collection, I added a
> "add machine script" with the same value as "add user
script"
> to smb.conf.
> 
> Any hints are highly appreciated.
> 
> TIA,
> Pete