search for: testparms

I've coded some scripts that extract some info from a smb.conf section. In DC works: root at vdcsv1:~# samba-tool -V 4.5.16-Debian root at vdcsv1:~# samba-tool testparm --section sysvol [sysvol] path = /var/lib/samba/sysvol read only = No root at vdcsv1:~# samba-tool testparm --section-name=sysvol [sysvol] path = /var/lib/samba/sysvol read only = No in DM no: root at

On Tue, 2019-09-24 at 17:47 +0100, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 24/09/2019 17:36, Marco Gaiarin via samba wrote: > > I've coded some scripts that extract some info from a smb.conf > > section. > > > > In DC works: > > > > root at vdcsv1:~# samba-tool -V > > 4.5.16-Debian > > root at vdcsv1:~# samba-tool testparm --section sysvol

I have to add noise: Provisioning a DC with sernet 4.1.x called NT1 as max default with me. Am 6. M?rz 2015 18:28:55 MEZ, schrieb James <lingpanda101 at gmail.com>: >OK. Now I'm really confused. I was not aware of two 'testparm' >commands. >Running 'testparm -v' shows correct default values. So whats the >difference? > > >On 3/6/2015 12:20 PM,

Hello dear Samba developers I am now configuring a PDC for a small LAN, using Samba 3.0.32 from Sernet. While the work advances I am studying Samba. I am not very experienced -- in fact I would better be called a beginner with Samba -- so please forgive me for any obvious errors with my observations. ---------- I compared the output of "testparm -v" with the parameters listed and

On 06/03/15 17:05, Marc Muehlfeld wrote: > Am 06.03.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Rowland Penny: >>> From 'samba-tool testparm -v' : >>> >>> server max protocol = NT1 >>> >>> BUT 'man smb.conf' says this : >>> >>> Default: server max protocol = SMB3 >>> >>> OK, one of these is wrong, but which ??? > If

I'm running FreeBSD 8 on a Sheevaplug (ARM5 processor) I compiled and installed Samba 3.3.9 from ports using defaults and defaults for dependencies. I left the smb.conf file untouched, ran testparm and immediately received the coredump. The same happens running smbd and nmbd. Can anyone help me resolve? http://old.nabble.com/file/p26879957/testparm.core.gz testparm.core.gz -- View this

Hi list! I've read some remarks here and in other places that it would be good practice to not edit the smb.conf file directly but rather keep a smb.conf.master file, edit that and then do a testparm -s > smb.conf. Here comes my problem: My smb.conf file uses some include statements. When using testparm those include lines are still in the output directly followed by the content of the

I am writing this letter and I hope that I'll have answers about the generation of smb.conf by the way of smb.conf.master with testparm command. Like is described on page 5 of Samba3-HOWTO.pdf. The situation is: - The manual of smb.conf says that the default value of the parameter ?name resolve order? is ?lmhosts host wins bcast?, but when I type the command like: # testparm -s

When I check my smb.conf file using the testparm -s command I get these messages Unknown parameter encountered: "passdb backend"

Can someone verify that testparm in 3.0.7 always reports the [printers] share as browseable = no ? I think this is a bug in 3.0.7. It might be affecting smbclient listing of printer shares too. Misty

I'm running Samba 4.3.3-3.1 on SLES 11. I'm debugging a configuration as Domain member. I've configured some read only shares. This is my configuration in smb.conf [to_company] comment = Tray to company path = /home/company/interfaces/bandejas/to_company browseable = yes guest ok = yes writeable = no force user = company force

it just says /usr/sbin/swat.new Aborted when i run it from the command line. nothing i can see in the logs... The swat binary from a 2 week old head now (with the rest of the installation from today's head) seems to work okay. what's going on with swat - did i screw up the build? Are others also having problems? (nothing in the marc) brad

Hello, i upgraded my ctdb cluster (3 nodes) from samba 4.7.7 to 4.8.3. Followed the steps under "policy" in this wikipage https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Upgrading_a_CTDB_cluster. I shutdown all CTDB nodes and upgraded them. After the upgrade i started all nodes and ctdb status shows: Number of nodes:3 pnn:0 192.168.199.52   OK (THIS NODE) pnn:1 192.168.199.53   OK pnn:2

Hi All, I am using solaris9 x86 installed this packages and then installed samba rc4 booms out with errors libiconv-1.9.1 BerkeleyDB.4.1 openldap-stable-20030709 samba-3.0.0rc4 ./configure --prefix=/data5/samba --with-libiconv=/usr/local/lib --with-krb5=/us r/local/sbin --with-ldap --with-profiling-data --with-quotas --with-sys-quotas - -with-acl-support make make install .... ....

Hi, Recently we have added 4.10.7 as additional dc, to our existing 4.4.5 samba AD DC, comparing output testparm I have detected that 4.4.5 has map readonly = no store dos attributes = Yes but 4.10.7 doesn't have Also compared smb.conf and both has the same configuration. Is this correct? Are required this configurations on 4.10.7? In a few day I want to upgrade this 4.4.5

hello, when trying to allow or deny hosts the access to my samba server and testing the access with testparm i found the following irritating behaviour: both samba and testparm don't properly resolve names. When providing an unqualified hostname in "hosts allow", "hosts deny" or to testparm, then the name resolver obviously doesn't expand the name and retreive the

After updating my test AD DC from samba version 4.5.5 to 4.6.0 and running testparm as asvised, I get the error idmap range not specified for domain '*' ERROR: Invalid idmap range for domain *! After I get trhe dump of the service definitions, I notice that there is a line in the [global] section: idmap config * : backend - tdb However, my smb.conf doesn't contain any such line

Apologies if this has been covered already, I can't find any helpful hints after 2 hours searching.... Testparm refuses to work on my e250 box - says it can't find the file? Any pointers to useful docs will be greatly appreciated (other than SAMS books and O'Rielly - been there, done that!), especially any relating to Solaris 8 and SAMBA! TIA Jo

I just installed samba on a new server, 3.4.5-42, 64 bit version from Sernet, over CentOS 5.4. When running testparm, I get the following warning: rlimit_max: rlimit_max (8192) below minimum Windows limit (16384) I searched Google for some answer but I couldn't find a satisfactory one. What should I do to solve this? Can someone from the Samba team enlighten me on this? Thank you!

OS: Debian squeeze Samba: 3.5.6 # testparm --section-name=global -s 2>&1|grep ALIX returns nothing # grep ALIX /etc/samba/smb.conf netbios name = ALIX works -- Regards Harry Jede