search for: oldhomes

I am *still* unable to mount shares from a Ubuntu 10.04 server, using a Ubuntu 10.04 laptop. I totally re-formatted both my desktop and my laptop with Ubuntu 10.04 (so that they would be using the same version of Samba). I am using the exact same smb.conf for the 2 machines (less the share definitions, which exist only on the desktop, known as "workhorse"). wbinfo -u, wbinfo -g,

clients on the domain. But I can not mount shares from the other Samba server; I always get "Permission denied". $ sudo mount -t cifs //workhorse/OldHome /mnt/OldHome -o username=DACRIB+turgon --verbose Password: mount.cifs kernel mount options: unc=//workhorse\OldHome,ver=1,rw,username=DACRIB+turgon,ip=10.0.0.20,pass=******** mount error(13): Permission denied Refer to the

Honestly, it's enough to make you scream. :-( I can't seem to mount a samba share: $ mount -t smbfs //workhorse/OldHome /network -o username=DACRIB+turgon,password=xxxxxx mount error(13): Permission denied Refer to the mount.cifs(8) manual page (e.g. man mount.cifs) (I'm logging into this laptop as the domain user DACRIB+turgon, domain = DACRIB. That part works perfectly.) I have

I have a Samba 3.4.0 server (from Ubuntu 9.04), as a member server in my Win2003 AD (which has MS Services for Unix 3.5 installed). All seems well, in that it is properly joined to my AD, I've got it all configured so that domain members can log into the Linux servers using their domain credentials. Here's my config: # WINBIND # idmap domains = DACRIB idmap config

Greetings! I am having a bit of an issue using Ubuntu 9.10 and AD 2003. AD domain = dacrib.local AD server = dim-2300.dacrib.local IP = 10.0.0.60 Samba server = workhorse.dacrib.local IP = 10.0.0.20 I have been following <https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Samba/Kerberos>, and my Kerberos seems set up properly, as I can get a ticket. root at workhorse:/etc/samba# klist Ticket cache:

.../data/samba # smbclient -L oink Password: Domain=[CORP1] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.0.7] Sharename Type Comment --------- ---- ------- print$ Disk Printer Drivers Share software Disk Software for Samba computers oldhomes Disk Novell Home Directories DATA Disk ENGR Disk IPC$ IPC IPC Service (Samba 3.0.7) ADMIN$ IPC IPC Service (Samba 3.0.7) root Disk Home Directories

I've been at this for days, and making no headway. It's very discouraging. I have a Win2003 domain, that has the Services for Unix extensions installed. I am trying to have multiple Samba servers as domain members. (in my case, one desktop sharing files, and one laptop, accessing the shares). And at the moment, it doesn't (fully) work. Each Samba server can see shares from the other.

So I ended up doing a net ads leave which removed the machine account from Active directory. Now I am trying to re-add it, but it seems to still be hanging around in Kerberos ... root at workhorse:/etc# klist Ticket cache: FILE:/tmp/krb5cc_0 Default principal: administrator at DACRIB.LOCAL Valid starting Expires Service principal 04/24/10 17:25:50 04/25/10 03:25:55

Once again, I am trying to add a machine to my Win2003 AD (that has Services for Unix installed). I am using Xubuntu 9.10, and samba 3.4.0. I set up Kerberos, and am getting a ticket. I have successfully joined the domain. # net ads join -U administrator Enter administrator's password: Using short domain name -- DACRIB Joined 'DUAL-BOOTER' to realm 'DaCrib.local' wbinfo -u

Hi there, As you know, $HOME is generally located at "/home/$username" by default. I would like to re-locate all users' $HOME directories to something like "/export/home/$username" without having a hassle/trouble. Initially, I've thought of just copying them to the new directory (under /export/home/xxx), but guessed it might trouble for the normal use (I'm pretty

Is there a document with instructions for this? I've had smartd warnings that a hard disk in my server is sick, so I am installing a new drive (in addition to the old). I was thinking of copying the old root partition with sudo cp -a -P /* /mnt/hd (after mounting the prospective new root partition). Then I'd have to modify the new /etc/fstab . Is that a sensible approach? -- Timothy