similar to: VI Transport effort for Samba/CIFS/SMB?

Hello, Our client is the Global leader in Enterprise clustered storage solutions with Fortune 500 clients ranging from NBC, Kodak to MySpace. Our client seeks talented and proven Software Development Engineers for positions focusing on Windows interoperability. This position will require working with open-source projects as well as understanding and working in both Windows and Unix environments.

Hello, New here, and I''m not sure if this is the correct mailing list to post this question or not. Anyway, we are having some questions about multi-protocol (CIFS/NFS) access to the same files specifically when not using AD or LDAP. Summary: Accessing the same folder from CIFS or NFS when working in a workgroup configuration (no domain authentication) works fine using cifs user

In version 3.0.23a (as a file server), I've noticed that CIFS clients (mount samba shares as cifs) get read errors. For example, if the vi a text file on the share, they get a read error. If the more a text file, nothing comes back, but the prompt. In 3.0.10 (pre configured by Centos, not compiled by me) this is not a problem. Here are my 3.0.23a options during configure:

Hello guys, could someone help me better understand the mechanism of negotiating of the SMB protocol? I watch closely samba list and recently there was a talk about the 'smb.conf' parameters like eg. "max protocol =" etc. with regards to Windows 10 (and other windows clients of diff versions). I read Jeff_Layton-Linux-CIFS-Client.pdf and

Hi, My problems with Samba continue... I'm very disappointed, i've never had as problems with Samba before (on my old server with Gentoo/Samba 3.0.23...). So the new problem is : When a student want to compile a C program into his home (mounted in CIFS), the produced executable can't be executed "./tst: cannot execute binary file". Tried on ubuntu-9.04 with mount.cifs

Hi I need to mount a windows share on a CentOS 4.5 box running stock kernel etc - I have tried using cifs and also smbfs My fstab looks like //share/name /mount/point smbfs username=user,password=password,uid=useridhere 0 0 or the same using cifs When i try and mount that i get the following errors depending on the share type smbfs: mount_data version 1919251317 is not supported CIFS

Hello all, In case you missed it: > We already had the basic CIFS service building on Solaris but it > took another 8 months, 22 more ARC cases, a lot of helping hands > and many late nights to deliver the project. On October 25th, 2007, > the CIFS service project putback over 800 files, approximately > 370,000 lines of code (including 180,000 lines of new code) to the

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Reminder of the pug fest coming up next week: - ------ SNIA 2008 Storage Developer Conference CIFS/SMB/SMB2 Plugfest The Storage Networking Industry Associate is hosting a CIFS/SMB/SMB2 plugfest event hosted in conjunction with the SNIA 2008 Storage Developer Conference in Santa Clara, CA, USA on September 22nd - 28th, 2008. This event is intended

Hi, Is anyone here using smb:// URLs to access "Windows" shares? I've been doing this for a while with common file systems at work, and it used to work just fine. Then I while back, I started getting issues; I will now just keep getting asked for a password when I try to access something through smb://. I thought at first that this meant there had been some kind of change

I will soon be implementing a Fedora Core 4 (or 5), 2.8MHz Xeon, 1GB RAM, 2.5TB storage, gigabit ethernet server which will hold backup copies of about 200 DVDs. These DVDs will be played through a gigabit LAN to another Fedora Core 4 (or 5) workstation using xine which will then output video to the projector in my living room. I am not asking to start a competition or war on the list. My

All; I am deeply sorry if this topic has been rehashed, checksummed, de-duplicated and archived before. But I just need a small clarification. /etc/sfw/smb.conf is necessary only for smb/server to function properly but is smb/server SMF service necessary for ZFS sharesmb to work I am trying to setup an open solaris file server acting as a Windows PDC with SAMBA/LDAP integration on the open

hi list, we recently saw the following weird behaviour on samba v3.0.13 with MacOSX panther and tiger as clients --setup-- [share1] path = /data valid users = @admins force user = administrator inherit permissions = yes force create mode = 770 force directory mode = 2770 [share2] path = /data/folder valid users = @noadmins force user = administrator inherit permissions = yes force create mode

Hello, I am running Mandrake 8.0 I am installing & upgrading to Samba 3.0.28 I just finished reading IBM's Redbook "Open Your Windows with Samba on Linux" (redp3780). I'd like to know, what is the best configuration between SMB/CIFS & DFS, in a Linux (servers) & Windows (clients/workstations) network. Even though I read the Redbook, it still not clear as to which

Too many places poke at [rs]q->vq->vdev->priv just to get the the vi structure. Let's just pass the pointer around: seems cleaner, and might even be faster. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c

Too many places poke at [rs]q->vq->vdev->priv just to get the the vi structure. Let's just pass the pointer around: seems cleaner, and might even be faster. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c

Too many places poke at [rs]q->vq->vdev->priv just to get the vi structure. Let's just pass the pointer around: seems cleaner, and might even be faster. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+),

Too many places poke at [rs]q->vq->vdev->priv just to get the vi structure. Let's just pass the pointer around: seems cleaner, and might even be faster. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+),

Too many places poke at [rs]q->vq->vdev->priv just to get the vi structure. Let's just pass the pointer around: seems cleaner, and might even be faster. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+),

Too many places poke at [rs]q->vq->vdev->priv just to get the vi structure. Let's just pass the pointer around: seems cleaner, and might even be faster. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+),

Too many places poke at [rs]q->vq->vdev->priv just to get the vi structure. Let's just pass the pointer around: seems cleaner, and might even be faster. Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+),