similar to: Dial in accounts (1883)

When the world was young, Adam Snodgrass carved some runes like this: > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 19:06:07 -0400 > Subject: Failure to execute programs from a mapped drive letter on a samba > I have a strange situation. I have a Linux machine running samba > 1.9.18p8, serving a mix of NT Workstation 4.0 and Windows 95 clients. In > general, things have worked flawlessly, with one

Howdy: I'm new to this samba stuff, but I've run across a problem that doesn't seem to be documented anywhere. It seems that OSR/2 clients (with all the M$ system updates; I already added the EnableClearTextPassword key) that have had their TCP/IP settings tweaked in the registry (eg, MaxMTU=576, TTL=32, RWIN added, etc) for DUN connections have mucho problems with a samba

Joel Handler wrote: > Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:50:33 -0400 > Subject: Netscape error > We are having a problem with Netscape that every so often we get lanman > redirector errors. We have Netscape 4.73 setup so that the users home > folder is located on the samba server (H drive). Do you know have any > ideas. The errors pop up randomly and have yet to be > pinpointed

A while back, Wayne Fool wrote: > I am confused about this password issue, I have samba 2.0.5a > running on a 486/dx2/66 as a print server for 3 computers, one is a > win 95b and the other is a win 95 (pre b), the other is a dos > computer (but that is another story, I'll tackle that one later). > > My network administrator says I must use encrypted passwords so I >

Howdy all: I thought I had this problem beaten into submission, but I guess not. We just got our first NT box, which is another new wrinkle... Anyway, the LAN just went belly-up again yesterday, and when the LAN guy disconnected my linux/samba box from the network, Network Neighborhood came right back. I still don't think it's a linux/samba problem, but I'm certainly no

Greetings All: I hope everyone had a fun Halloween weekend (I carved 4 big pumpkins and gave out a bucket full of rubber eyeballs and stuff). I'm hoping somebody can explain the password behavior I've been seeing (and a couple of other things). Here's my setup: An isolated LAN (most clients have modems for dialling out) with one linux/samba machine (RedHat 4.2, kernel 2.0.30,

Howdy folks: Hi. It's me again. I've posted before about browsing problems, etc. Here's the setup: An isolated LAN (most clients have modems for dialling out) with one linux/samba machine (RedHat 4.2, kernel 2.0.30, samba 1.9.18p8) and ~20 win95 (OSR/2.1) clients. We used to have Netware 4.11 until the new PC/lan guy decided we didn't it any more (our old server now runs

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> 3. LLVM already has a significant amount of infrastructure for loop >> passes; why does this pass have its own code for finding loops? > > I saw the loop infrastructure for CFG loops. This algorithm finds loops in > the data flow (more precisely: strongly-connected components in the >

On 10/27/10 8:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Brian West<bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: >> Here is the patch for the new Operator Strength Reduction optimization >> pass that I have written. The bulk of the code is in >> >> lib/Transforms/Scalar/OperatorStrengthReduce.cpp >> >> The algorithm finds reduction opportunities in

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Empirically the OSR optimization is compile-time faster than LSR. I have > > also noticed that OSR has more "analysis" requirements: Induction Variable > > User, Natural Loop Information, Canonicalize natural loops, and Scalar > > Evolution Analysis. Both OSR and LSR require the Dominator Tree

Evan Cheng <evan.cheng <at> apple.com> writes: > Eli is right. We do need to see some benchmark numbers and understand how the pass will fit in the target > independent optimizer. While we encourage contribution, we typically don't commit new passes unless it > introduce new functionalities that have active clients. It would also help if you provide us with compile

On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Brian West wrote: > On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just >> zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? > This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR > proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. > >>> FWIW I noticed

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: >> >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR >> >> > needs >> >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, >> >> > -reassociate, -gvn >>

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> > I did not mention in the original email (and should have) that OSR needs > >> > -instcombine to be run after it for cleanup. Also -licm, -reassociate, -gvn > >> > and -sccp can be enabling optimizations for OSR. > >> > >> Hmm... perhaps that could be partially fixed

On 10/29/10 1:26 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Sure, but you know which induction variables you created; you can just > zap the unused ones at the end of the pass, no? This is feasible. We would have to collect more information during OSR proper pass and add logic to cleanup at the end. >> FWIW I noticed that other optimizations (as seen in StandardPasses.h) are >> followed by

Recently Microsoft introduced some network improvements which made it impossible to connect to Samba without using encrypted passwords. There is a way-around for NT4.0 (SP3) by changing a registry entry. This has been published by Microsoft in their knowledge-base. With WIN95 OSR2.1 and the vredir patch (vredir.vxd and vnetsup.vxd dated June, 2nd 1997 or later) the behaviour is very similar to

> > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had initially > hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the problem > is > more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, > but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some people > regardless > of how the output compares. > A few years

On 11/13/10 11:05 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had > initially > hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the > problem is > more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any measurements, > but it's likely that OSR is faster, which may interest some

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Brian West <bnwest at rice.edu> wrote: > On 11/13/10 11:05 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > A big downside of the current LSR algorithm is it's slow. I had >> initially >> hoped that some of the heuristics would protect it better, but the problem >> is >> more complex than I had expected. I haven't done any

When the world was young, Eric Melville carved some runes like this: > From: Eric Melville <m_thrope@rigelnet.ml.org> > Subject: passwords > > could someone please give me the lowdown on samba and passwords? i keep > trying to connect to any share name on either of my unix boxes, either > from each other or from a win95 machine... every time i can't get anything >