dmarshall@oh.hra.com
2004-Oct-06 19:51 UTC
[Samba] problem with displaying large number of large file names
We have been using Samba for 4 or 5 years. The server has done its function well. Now, I'm trying to upgrade from 2.0.3 to 3.0.x ==> We serve files with large file names (80 characters). We can see all file names on our 2.0.3 server but cannot on the 3.0.x implementation. ==> Seems coincidental with trying to operate on files in UNIX /ms9v_000>ls * /bin/ksh: /usr/bin/ls: 0403-027 The parameter list is too long. ms9v_000>ls | wc 441 441 33957 samba will display all files in /ms9v_000 in 2.0.3 (441 files) but only 65 files are displayed in 3.0.x release ==> We can access all files by name, but a directory listing in DOS prompt only displays 65 files and the Windows display only lists 65 files /PCTMP>ls | wc 518 703 6988 ls * in the "/PCTMP" directory works fine samba will properly display all files in /PCTMP in 2.0.3 release and 3.0.x release I tried using 3.0.1, 3.0.4, 3.0.5, and 3.0.7 releases. Thanks for your time. Regards, David Marshall Phone: 937-309-9437 Fax: 937-645-6262 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. **********************************************************************
Holger Krull
2004-Oct-06 22:07 UTC
[Samba] problem with displaying large number of large file names
dmarshall@oh.hra.com schrieb:> We have been using Samba for 4 or 5 years. The server has done its > function well. > > Now, I'm trying to upgrade from 2.0.3 to 3.0.x > > ==> We serve files with large file names (80 characters). We can see all > file names on our 2.0.3 server but cannot on the 3.0.x implementation. > ==> Seems coincidental with trying to operate on files in UNIXDid you check if your dos charset unix charset display charset settings are correct?