Hello everybody, we moved our samba server to a new machine. This included changing the samba version from 3.024 to 3.4.2 and changing the OS from Linux to Opensolaris. Samba was compiled from scratch. Passdb Backend is tdb. After the upgrade everything works fine......except: Some users can not login, due to an expired account. Further investigation showed that the "Kickoff Time" of the affected users is set to "Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:59:59 CET". All unaffected user show up "never" for the Kickoff Parameter. Is there a way to control the kickoff time via command line? A quick grep through the sources showed up the "pdb_set_kickoff_time" function in passdb.c, but the function seems only to be referenced by pdb_ldap.c which does not help with our tdb backend. Deleting und recreating the user would work, but forces us to reset the passwords.... thx Carsten -- Max Planck Institut fuer marine Mikrobiologie - Network Administration - Celsiustr. 1 D-28359 Bremen Tel.: +49 421 2028568 Fax.: +49 421 2028565 PGP public key:http://www.mpi-bremen.de/Carsten_John.html
Checked up on my new 3.3.8 installation and found this after a vista workstation was idle all day on the network I forgot to save the smbstatus output but it was a long list of PIDs linked to the workstation in question. Also I restarted then stopped the server and all the processes stayed there. PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 12484 root 1 117 0 11388K 8080K CPU3 3 6:38 93.65% bzip2 546 root 1 51 0 3184K 988K select 3 70:47 12.60% syslogd 12558 root 1 98 0 14624K 5628K RUN 3 0:06 9.57% smbd 9540 root 1 98 0 14624K 5500K RUN 2 27:59 0.00% smbd 11658 root 1 98 0 14624K 5596K RUN 3 23:29 0.00% smbd 10785 root 1 98 0 14624K 5544K RUN 2 23:04 0.00% smbd 9836 root 1 102 0 14624K 5492K RUN 2 22:56 0.00% smbd 11076 root 1 98 0 14624K 5540K RUN 0 21:43 0.00% smbd 10495 root 1 98 0 14624K 5544K RUN 0 21:28 0.00% smbd 11979 root 1 97 0 14624K 5608K RUN 0 19:53 0.00% smbd 10183 root 1 97 0 14624K 5504K RUN 2 13:26 0.00% smbd 11472 root 1 97 0 14624K 5588K RUN 0 12:21 0.00% smbd 10328 root 1 97 0 14624K 5516K RUN 0 7:45 0.00% smbd 11385 root 1 99 0 14624K 5568K RUN 2 7:27 0.00% smbd 10730 root 1 98 0 14624K 5536K RUN 0 4:06 0.00% smbd 9472 root 1 98 0 14624K 5484K RUN 2 3:36 0.00% smbd 11932 root 1 98 0 14624K 5600K RUN 0 3:17 0.00% smbd 11609 root 1 98 0 14624K 5588K RUN 3 3:05 0.00% smbd 10085 root 1 99 0 14624K 5488K RUN 0 3:04 0.00% smbd 10129 root 1 98 0 14624K 5504K RUN 0 2:52 0.00% smbd 11029 root 1 98 0 14624K 5536K RUN 0 2:16 0.00% smbd 11904 root 1 98 0 14624K 5584K RUN 3 2:04 0.00% smbd 12246 root 1 98 0 14708K 5664K RUN 0 2:03 0.00% smbd 9454 root 1 99 0 14624K 5448K RUN 2 1:54 0.00% smbd 9172 root 1 100 0 14624K 5424K RUN 2 1:52 0.00% smbd 10441 root 1 98 0 14624K 5520K RUN 2 1:48 0.00% smbd 10475 root 1 97 0 14624K 5480K RUN 0 1:30 0.00% smbd 11340 root 1 98 0 14624K 5552K RUN 0 1:28 0.00% smbd 10420 root 1 97 0 14624K 5516K RUN 2 1:21 0.00% smbd 11309 root 1 98 0 14624K 5512K RUN 2 1:14 0.00% smbd 12207 root 1 97 0 14708K 5664K RUN 0 1:05 0.00% smbd 12195 root 1 98 0 14708K 5592K RUN 0 0:41 0.00% smbd 10175 root 1 97 0 14624K 5488K RUN 0 0:34 0.00% smbd 12220 root 1 97 0 14708K 5624K RUN 0 0:29 0.00% smbd 11377 root 1 97 0 14624K 5568K RUN 0 0:24 0.00% smbd 3797 root 1 44 0 8428K 2656K select 3 0:24 0.00% sshd 11326 root 1 97 0 14624K 5528K RUN 0 0:21 0.00% smbd 3867 root 1 44 0 8340K 4364K select 3 0:17 0.00% mc 9533 root 1 97 0 14624K 5448K RUN 0 0:12 0.00% smbd 11067 root 1 98 0 14624K 5496K RUN 0 0:09 0.00% smbd 11371 root 1 97 0 14624K 5528K RUN 2 0:09 0.00% smbd 9448 root 1 98 0 14624K 5448K RUN 2 0:04 0.00% smbd 5945 root 1 44 0 4672K 1624K select 3 0:04 0.00% ntpd 786 root 1 44 0 5876K 2440K select 0 0:02 0.00% sendmail 3742 root 1 44 0 8428K 2656K select 2 0:02 0.00% sshd 5732 bind 7 4 0 28916K 22612K kqread 2 0:01 0.00% named 5886 dhcpd 1 44 0 3128K 1656K select 0 0:01 0.00% dhcpd 3869 root 1 5 0 4396K 1780K ttyin 2 0:01 0.00% bash 796 root 1 8 0 3212K 960K nanslp 2 0:00 0.00% cron 790 smmsp 1 20 0 5876K 2192K pause 3 0:00 0.00% sendmail 3801 root 1 8 0 4396K 1732K wait 3 0:00 0.00% bash 3746 root 1 8 0 4396K 1652K wait 2 0:00 0.00% bash 12555 root 1 96 0 14428K 5428K select 2 0:00 0.00% smbd 12559 root 1 44 0 3496K 1496K CPU0 0 0:00 0.00% top 487 root 1 44 0 1888K 428K select 0 0:00 0.00% devd 780 root 1 44 0 5752K 2292K select 0 0:00 0.00% sshd 12549 root 1 50 0 9516K 3008K select 3 0:00 0.00% nmbd 12471 root 1 8 0 3128K 964K wait 0 0:00 0.00% newsyslog Ohh and I started getting this again.....this problem has come and gone lately...its back now. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Brian Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292) Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo
OK Progress, MAYBE!? I know my web server is inaccessible, but let's move on from that... that is an issue for another day. At a log level 3, currently, I get the following sequence repeating itself about 164 times per second. In that sequence it appears to be closing 2 directories with incrementing fnum's So what is smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343) close directory fnum=xxxx? that is about the only thing that changes besides the transaction number. I'm not sure where the pattern starts/stop but the following is CLEARLY repeating itself at a high rate of speed. Brian [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/trans2.c:call_trans2findfirst(1926) call_trans2findfirst: dirtype = 16, maxentries = 1366, close_after_first=1, close_if_end = 1 requires_resume_key = 1 level = 0x104, max_data_bytes = 16384 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/dir.c:dptr_create(518) creating new dirptr 256 for path ./, expect_close = 1 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801277 of length 92 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324) setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801278 of length 45 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343) close directory fnum=7062 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801279 of length 92 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324) setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801280 of length 45 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343) close directory fnum=7063 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801281 of length 112 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBtrans2 (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/trans2.c:call_trans2findfirst(1926) call_trans2findfirst: dirtype = 16, maxentries = 1366, close_after_first=1, close_if_end = 1 requires_resume_key = 1 level = 0x104, max_data_bytes = 16384 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/dir.c:dptr_create(518) creating new dirptr 256 for path ./, expect_close = 1 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801282 of length 92 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324) setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801283 of length 45 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343) close directory fnum=7064 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801284 of length 92 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324) setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801285 of length 45 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343) close directory fnum=7065 [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576) Transaction 801286 of length 112 (0 toread) [2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393) switch message SMBtrans2 (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jra at samba.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:41 PM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: samba-bounces at lists.samba. On Behalf Of Brian > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:09 AM > > > http://66.190.9.142/vista-spam-1.log > > > > http://66.190.9.142/vista-spam-2.log > > > > Here is a few seconds worth in these two files. This is with the > > workaround in place where I have a "roo" share setup on the server > > so you will not see all those can't find service messages. > > I can't get access to these files. I'm getting "connection timed out". > > > The more I investigate the more I am convinced it is a client issue.. > > > > Another interesting tidbit of information. Last night I setup a new > account > > on the bsd box (non wheel account) and a matching account on the > vista > > box (non administrator) and after a quick try last night it would > appear > > the problem goes away (or had not started yet). I will duplicate > > that experiment to make sure. > > Please keep the list up to date with your progress. > > Jeremy.
Hello Helmut I don't understand your comment I think you said You meant message posted on 10/31/09 with subject "[Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?" If that is accurate, then yes, I ws referring to that post> -----Original Message----- > From: Helmut Hullen [mailto:Hullen at t-online.de] > Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:08 AM > To: bbayorgeon at charter.net > Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections? > > Hallo, Brian, > > Du meintest am 31.10.09 zum Thema Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes > and connections?: > > > Well, my log attachments didn't go through so I posted to bugzilla > > here > > > https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6862 > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brian [mailto:bbayorgeon at charter.net] > >> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:27 AM > >> To: 'samba at lists.samba.org' > >> Cc: 'Jeremy Allison' > >> Subject: RE: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections? > >> > >> Well, it was all a delusion. The problem is not fixed - it has > >> returned. I have attached to this email 3 files with level 10 logs. > >> I'm not sure if the attachments will pass to the samba list or not, > >> but I will try. If not I will resend with the content in the email. > >> > >> the files are: > >> > >> "smbd start to first rep" > >> > >> is the log from the time the smdb process restarts until the > >> appearance of the first loop repetition. > >> > >> "rep 1" > >> > >> is the log of first repetition of things after the server has > >> initialized and the session established with the client. > >> > >> "rep 2" > >> > >> is the basically the same as the rep1 > >> > >> it goes on and on..... > >> > >> > >>> No, your trace doesn't look anything like his problem (I just > >> looked). > >>> Your trace shows a DFS referral request for a truncated network > >>> path, not a repeating findfirst pattern. > >>> > >>> Jeremy. > >> > >> Jeremy, if you take a look at the logs (lvl 10 this time) you will > >> see that the first reference to the truncated service name (roo) > >> occurs in conjunction with dfs...so I postulate that it is the same > >> problem Matt is having. > >> > >> Brian > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brian [mailto:bbayorgeon at charter.net] > >> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:27 AM > >> To: 'samba at lists.samba.org' > >> Cc: 'Jeremy Allison' > >> Subject: RE: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections? > >> > >> Well, it was all a delusion. The problem is not fixed - it has > >> returned. I have attached to this email 3 files with level 10 logs. > >> I'm not sure if the attachments will pass to the samba list or not, > >> but I will try. If not I will resend with the content in the email. > >> > >> the files are: > >> > >> "smbd start to first rep" > >> > >> is the log from the time the smdb process restarts until the > >> appearance of the first loop repetition. > >> > >> "rep 1" > >> > >> is the log of first repetition of things after the server has > >> initialized and the session established with the client. > >> > >> "rep 2" > >> > >> is the basically the same as the rep1 > >> > >> it goes on and on..... > >> > >> > >>> No, your trace doesn't look anything like his problem (I just > >> looked). > >>> Your trace shows a DFS referral request for a truncated network > >>> path, not a repeating findfirst pattern. > >>> > >>> Jeremy. > >> > >> Jeremy, if you take a look at the logs (lvl 10 this time) you will > >> see that the first reference to the truncated service name (roo) > >> occurs in conjunction with dfs...so I postulate that it is the same > >> problem Matt is having. > >> > >> [2009/10/30 19:31:29, 10] smbd/trans2.c:call_trans2getdfsreferral(73 > >> 25) call_trans2getdfsreferral > >> [2009/10/30 19:31:29, 10] smbd/msdfs.c:parse_dfs_path(108) > >> parse_dfs_path: temp = |OLDJUNK\roo| after trimming \'s > >> [2009/10/30 > >> 19:31:29, 10] smbd/msdfs.c:parse_dfs_path(133) > >> parse_dfs_path: hostname: OLDJUNK > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: samba-bounces at lists.samba.org [mailto:samba- > >>> bounces at lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Brian > >>> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:17 AM > >>> To: samba at lists.samba.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections? > >>> > >>> This also fits with my earlier effort to add a new user on the > >> windoze > >>> and bsd side which didn't have all the links back and forth. That > >>> effort with the new user didn't produce all the spamming. > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: samba-bounces at lists.samba.org On Behalf Of Brian > >>>> > >>>> Well don't hold me to it, but I may have solved it! > >>>> > >>>> Was trying to reproduce it but that failed....grrr Will keep > >>>> trying after all this...for the benefit of all > >>>> > >>>> anywho....here is / was the thing > >>>> > >>>> my homes is set to > >>>> > >>>> [homes] > >>>> comment = Home directory for %u on %h > >>>> browseable = no > >>>> writable = yes > >>>> path = /usr/home/%u/Documents > >>>> valid users = %S > >>>> > >>>> I had /usr/home/root as a symbolic link pointing back to /root > >>>> > >>>> then I had /root/Documents as a symbolic link pointing to > >>>> /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/root/Documents > >>>> > >>>> should be ok? at least I thought so > >>>> > >>>> well so far so good (crosses fingers) I deleted the /usr/home/root > >>>> symbolic link to /root and made a real directory there named root, > >>>> then I created a symbolic link there named Documents to > >>>> /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/Documents > >>>> > >>>> ohh and if ya missed it I moved > >>>> /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/root/Documents > >>>> to /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/Documents > >>>> > >>>> and also somewhere in there I renamed "old root home" to > >>>> "old-root- home" > >>>> > >>>> BAMMM near as I can tell no one is spamming any more > >>>> > >>>> Yawns! time will tell if I fixed it, but would sure like to > >>>> reproduce it! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:jra at samba.org] > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:33 PM > >>>>> To: Brian > >>>>> Cc: samba at lists.samba.org; 'Jeremy Allison'; 'Matthew Dickinson' > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:48:10PM -0500, Brian wrote: > >>>>>> Not that a matters, remember I have my non-working work around > >>>>>> in place where I inserted a "roo" share. It may change things > >>>>>> because I am not getting that recurring " couldn't find service > >>>>>> roo" anymore which was looking for a truncated service name. > >>>>>> DFS problems does however sound like a different ball > >> game...IDK > >>>>> > >>>>> If you're not using DFS then try setting "host msdfs = no" and > >>>>> rebooting the clients. I'm guessing this may make a difference. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jeremy. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > >>>> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba > >>> > >>> -- > >>> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > >>> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba > > > Don't top post - please! > Don't full quote - please! (My full quote is just a bad example) > Thank you! > > > Viele Gruesse! > Helmut