search for: enp2s0f0

...t was not working as i originally expected it. I have two hosts: my workstation running up to date Windows 10 with 2 interfaces my server running Gentoo with Samba 4.5.4 with 2 interfaces (all connected to the same network) workstation has IPs 192.168.2.114, 192.168.2.115 server has 192.168.2.16(enp2s0f0),192.168.2.17(enp2s0f1) i'm connecting to .16 using my workstation and i can send at 2x linespeed devided to both .16 and .17 as expected. But when i'm receiving Samba sends over .16 and only over .16 to both .114 and .115 at half line speed. It's because .16 has the default route....

...t OSes have a virtio network driver by > default (e.g. MS Windows)) I don't use forward (unless libvirt does that for me) but I have a pool like this one: <interface type='network'> <mac address='52:54:00:51:af:0e'/> <source network='passpool-enp2s0f0'/> <model type='rtl8139'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x07' function='0x0'/> </interface> In a win 2008 guest OS is missing drivers for this device and I wonder what is that it ge...

...es have a virtio network driver by >> default (e.g. MS Windows)) > I don't use forward (unless libvirt does that for me) but I have a > pool like this one: This does not show the details of your network. For that, you would need to get the output of "virsh net-dumpxml passpool-enp2s0f0". If, as you have indicated in your next message, the guest sees the same hardware type as what is physically on the host, then you are using <forward mode='hostdev'> in your network (and no, libvirt would not "do that for you", you or someone else would have needed to...

...domain logons = no > netbios aliases = mynet13, Net23 > include = /etc/samba/smb.conf.myNAS > bind interfaces only = yes > include = /etc/samba/smb.conf.user1 > > > smb.conf.myNAS > [global] > workgroup = Workgrou2 > netbios name = mynet13 > interfaces = enp7s0f01,enp2s0f0 > [myNAS-smbDir] > valid users = Fred, james > read list = > write list = Fred, james > path = /mnt/SAB-NAS/myFS/smbDir > guest ok = no > writable = yes > create mask = 0777 > directory mask = 0777 > > Thanks for the reply, one of my clients is connected to the PDC...

...55.255.0 > [2018/02/15 10:39:02.987391, 2] ../source3/lib/interface.c: > 345(add_interface) > added interface vlan50 ip=10.0.50.4 bcast=10.0.50.255 > netmask=255.255.255.0 > [2018/02/15 10:39:02.987439, 2] ../source3/lib/interface.c: > 345(add_interface) > added interface enp2s0f0 ip=10.1.60.3 bcast=10.1.60.255 > netmask=255.255.255.0 > [2018/02/15 10:39:02.987484, 2] ../source3/lib/interface.c: > 345(add_interface) > added interface enp2s0f0 ip=10.1.60.5 bcast=10.1.60.255 > netmask=255.255.255.0 > [2018/02/15 10:39:02.987611, 1] ../source3/profile/prof...

RID solved my problem. But while reading docs I saw new things and I changed my smb.conf completely. I have read almost every parameter but i'm still not %100 sure. Can you do me a last favor? Please can you tell me do I have any problem with new smb.conf? Kernel: Linux 4.14.13-1-ARCH Filesystem: zfs-linux 0.7.5.4.14.13.1-1 Thank you so much for your help. --------------------- [global]

hello My windows client is a an ldap server member with an example.com domain. When we try to connect to the samba server, shared folders are visible correctly, but it's not possible to connect users. my smb.conf [global] workgroup = WORKGROUP netbios name = hpds security = user map to guest = Bad User dns proxy = no server string = %h server log level = 0 max log size = 10000 load

...9:02.987391, 2] ../source3/lib/interface.c: > > 345(add_interface) > > added interface vlan50 ip=10.0.50.4 bcast=10.0.50.255 > > netmask=255.255.255.0 > > [2018/02/15 10:39:02.987439, 2] ../source3/lib/interface.c: > > 345(add_interface) > > added interface enp2s0f0 ip=10.1.60.3 bcast=10.1.60.255 > > netmask=255.255.255.0 > > [2018/02/15 10:39:02.987484, 2] ../source3/lib/interface.c: > > 345(add_interface) > > added interface enp2s0f0 ip=10.1.60.5 bcast=10.1.60.255 > > netmask=255.255.255.0 > > [2018/02/15 10:39:02.98761...

hi everybody I'd presume virsh makes the best possible choice, right? It is that just seems bit... odd having realtek in guest and Intel's VF on host, no? regards