OK, here's the result of ps ax: ?1324 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/nmbd --foreground --no-process-group ?1348 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group ?1351 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group ?1352 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group ?1353 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group ?8573 pts/1??? S+???? 0:00 grep --color=auto mbd So it looks like it is running, which I suspected. Actually, the firewall is off on both machines currently. Bill Lugg On 11/16/19 10:09 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote:> On 16/11/2019 16:07, William Lugg via samba wrote: >> Yes, I created the unix user and a Samba user as instructed in the Wiki. >> >> According to the package manager, my Samba version is 4.7.6. Would >> you say upgrading is still in order? > This is better than what I thought you would be running, but it is > still EOL as far as Samba is concerned, but it should work ;-) >> >> The test I mentioned was entirely using Linux machines.? I first >> tried using smbclient from the Linux server machine (I'm not sure if >> this would actually work, but it seems like it should) and I also >> tried it from another Linux machine running the same version of Samba >> that yielded the same results.? After all that I did try the Win10 >> machine too and found it failed as well. > > Samba 4.7.6 is ntlm2 only by default, but this command (run on what > you are calling the server) should display info about Samba: > > smbclient -L localhost -N > > If you do not get anything, then check if 'samba' is installed, > normally (at least on Debian) it isn't. > > If is, check if it is running: ps ax | grep 'mbd' > > It should return something like this: > > ?3703 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd -D > ?3709 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd -D > ?3711 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd -D > ?3765 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/nmbd -D > 15182 pts/0??? S+???? 0:00 grep mbd > >> >> Enabling SMB1 had no effect, the error is "The network path was not >> found."? Based on these errors, it really doesn't sound like a >> failure to log in, it sounds to me more like the share is simply not >> visible to the other machines on the network, regardless of the OS >> they are running.? I am stumped as to why this isn't working. >> >> FWIW, in doing some reading, I see that SMB1 is a security risk on >> Win10, so I'm disabling it for now.? I'd like to focus on getting >> Samba working on Linux to Linux communications first; Win10 would be >> the icing on the cake, so to speak. > enabling SMBv1 on the Windows was a test and you are correct, you > shouldn't use it, but without it there is no network browsing. Sharing > will work without SMBv1, just without network browsing, but there is a > way around this, but lets get Samba connections working first ;-) > > If you still cannot get it working and Samba is running, check if a > firewall is running and blocking the Samba ports '137, 138, 139 and 445' > > Rowland > > >
On 16/11/2019 18:47, William Lugg via samba wrote:> OK, here's the result of ps ax: > > ?1324 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/nmbd --foreground --no-process-group > ?1348 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group > ?1351 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group > ?1352 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group > ?1353 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd --foreground --no-process-group > ?8573 pts/1??? S+???? 0:00 grep --color=auto mbd > > So it looks like it is running, which I suspected. > > Actually, the firewall is off on both machines currently. > > Bill Lugg > > > > > On 11/16/19 10:09 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: >> On 16/11/2019 16:07, William Lugg via samba wrote: >>> Yes, I created the unix user and a Samba user as instructed in the >>> Wiki. >>> >>> According to the package manager, my Samba version is 4.7.6. Would >>> you say upgrading is still in order? >> This is better than what I thought you would be running, but it is >> still EOL as far as Samba is concerned, but it should work ;-) >>> >>> The test I mentioned was entirely using Linux machines.? I first >>> tried using smbclient from the Linux server machine (I'm not sure if >>> this would actually work, but it seems like it should) and I also >>> tried it from another Linux machine running the same version of >>> Samba that yielded the same results. After all that I did try the >>> Win10 machine too and found it failed as well. >> >> Samba 4.7.6 is ntlm2 only by default, but this command (run on what >> you are calling the server) should display info about Samba: >> >> smbclient -L localhost -N >> >> If you do not get anything, then check if 'samba' is installed, >> normally (at least on Debian) it isn't. >> >> If is, check if it is running: ps ax | grep 'mbd' >> >> It should return something like this: >> >> ?3703 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd -D >> ?3709 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd -D >> ?3711 ???????? S????? 0:00 /usr/sbin/smbd -D >> ?3765 ???????? Ss???? 0:00 /usr/sbin/nmbd -D >> 15182 pts/0??? S+???? 0:00 grep mbd >> >>> >>> Enabling SMB1 had no effect, the error is "The network path was not >>> found."? Based on these errors, it really doesn't sound like a >>> failure to log in, it sounds to me more like the share is simply not >>> visible to the other machines on the network, regardless of the OS >>> they are running.? I am stumped as to why this isn't working. >>> >>> FWIW, in doing some reading, I see that SMB1 is a security risk on >>> Win10, so I'm disabling it for now.? I'd like to focus on getting >>> Samba working on Linux to Linux communications first; Win10 would be >>> the icing on the cake, so to speak. >> enabling SMBv1 on the Windows was a test and you are correct, you >> shouldn't use it, but without it there is no network browsing. >> Sharing will work without SMBv1, just without network browsing, but >> there is a way around this, but lets get Samba connections working >> first ;-) >> >> If you still cannot get it working and Samba is running, check if a >> firewall is running and blocking the Samba ports '137, 138, 139 and 445' >> >> Rowland >> >> >> >So, what does 'smbclient -L localhost -N' return ? I get: Anonymous login successful ??? Sharename?????? Type????? Comment ??? ---------?????? ----????? ------- ??? Demo??????????? Disk ??? tmpguest??????? Disk ??? berryboot?????? Disk ??? linprofiles???? Disk ??? services??????? Disk????? services ??? test??????????? Disk ??? IPC$??????????? IPC?????? IPC Service (Samba 4 Client devstation) Reconnecting with SMB1 for workgroup listing. Anonymous login successful ??? Server?????????????? Comment ??? ---------??????????? ------- ??? DEVSTATION?????????? Samba 4 Client devstation ??? Workgroup??????????? Master ??? ---------??????????? ------- ??? SAMDOM Yours will be different. Rowland
Here's what I got: Anonymous login successful ??? Sharename?????? Type????? Comment ??? ---------?????? ----????? ------- ??? data_server???? Disk ??? IPC$??????????? IPC?????? IPC Service (Samba 4.7.6-Ubuntu) Reconnecting with SMB1 for workgroup listing. Anonymous login successful ??? Server?????????????? Comment ??? ---------??????????? ------- ??? Workgroup??????????? Master ??? ---------??????????? ------- ??? WORKGROUP??????????? HOMENETWORK It looks pretty similar to yours in form. Bill Lugg On 11/16/19 11:55 AM, Rowland penny via samba wrote:> So, what does 'smbclient -L localhost -N' return ? > > I get: > > Anonymous login successful > > ??? Sharename?????? Type????? Comment > ??? ---------?????? ----????? ------- > ??? Demo??????????? Disk > ??? tmpguest??????? Disk > ??? berryboot?????? Disk > ??? linprofiles???? Disk > ??? services??????? Disk????? services > ??? test??????????? Disk > ??? IPC$??????????? IPC?????? IPC Service (Samba 4 Client devstation) > Reconnecting with SMB1 for workgroup listing. > Anonymous login successful > > ??? Server?????????????? Comment > ??? ---------??????????? ------- > ??? DEVSTATION?????????? Samba 4 Client devstation > > ??? Workgroup??????????? Master > ??? ---------??????????? ------- > ??? SAMDOM > > Yours will be different. > > Rowland > > >