similar to: msdfs root = yes is the default???

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 9000 matches similar to: "msdfs root = yes is the default???"

2008 Feb 28
1
msdfs root / directory structure.
Can I have folders in the msdfs root? >From the docs I do not see a mention of this and in the past it did not work for me however with samba-3.0.28 it appears to be working. img_dfs_root # ls -alR .: total 0 drwxrwsr-x 3 root honestbrokers 264 Feb 28 14:11 . drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 104 Oct 22 10:35 .. lrwxrwxrwx 1 root honestbrokers 27
2013 Feb 04
1
msdfs proxy question
Hi List, I am struggling a little bit with the msdfs proxy parameter. I want the samba server as a kind of a bridge between two networks, that the samba server only shares some of the shares provided by our file server to a second network. I don't want the samba srv to be a gw or give the clients a route to the internal network, because it is a total different user group. I first tried to
2002 Nov 11
1
MSDFS...
Hi, After some experiment with MSDFS on Samba I have seen this problems and I don't know if this are caused by my possible wrong configuration or if are "feature" of MSDFS: -as described into the documentation I compiled a Samba version with --with-msdfs and this smb.conf (server 172.26.11.236). The configuration file is: [Global] host msdfs = yes [dfs] path = /mnt/disk
2011 Aug 02
1
msdfs and %u
I tryed to use msdfs, but it doesn't work. Is it my fault, or is it a bug? log.snmd: smbd/msdfs.c:295(create_conn_struct) create_conn_struct: Can't ChDir to new conn path /mypath/host/%u. Error was No such file or directory Part of smb.conf: [global] ... host msdfs = yes ... [eb] path = /mypath/data/eb force group =smb valid users = @gruppeeb write list = @gruppeeb browseable = no
2023 Jan 05
1
msdfs proxy and subfolders
Hello, everyone, I'm seeing some inconsistent behavior across SMB clients when configuring shares using the "msdfs proxy" parameter, and was hoping to get some advice from the community on this. My issue is that various SMB clients seem to behave differently when this parameter is pointed as a path that includes a sub-folder under the root share. So, given the following share
2002 Oct 24
1
MSDFS info...
Hi, I'm new on Samba... I'm trying to set a samba server with a DFS share. I have found this example: # The smb.conf file: [global] netbios name = SAMBA host msdfs = yes [dfs] path = /export/dfsroot msdfs root = yes then I must create some link into /export/dfsroot: root# cd /export/dfsroot root# chown root /export/dfsroot root# chmod 755 /export/dfsroot root# ln -s
2001 Dec 14
1
Using MSDFS
I've set up a dfs share according to instructions. There is one part of the instructions that I don't understand. I've checked the forum archives but can't find any examples which might help. In the Instructions section (4.1 of the HTML Samba Project Documentation), is shows how to set up the symbolic links in a DFS share, as shown below. I have 2 Samba servers (SMB1 and SMB2).
2001 Sep 25
2
problems with msdfs
We did some tests with msdfs on HP/UX with samba version 2.2.1.a and we found a strange problem. We create a msdfs root on a HP/UX system with samba version 2.2.1.a and create a link in it to an HP/UX system with samba version 2.0.7. We mapped the link in the msdfs root on a NT4 system to drive F. The share contains the source of samba and in explorer we went to :
2008 Jan 07
1
msdfs problem
I think I've set up my msdfs correctly, but I keep getting the following message when I try to connect to it: [2008/01/07 05:00:45, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(1003) '/etc/samba/xyz' does not exist or permission denied when connecting to [beaufort] Error was No such file or directory I have kahn in both hosts and lmhosts. Any suggestions on what I am doing wrong?
2015 May 28
2
preexec and msdfs proxy
One more time: root preexec does: run a command or script if the user hit the share. Now with msdfs proxy it need to be run on the linked host that carries the share. So you are better to set root preexec on the share of the linked host. I think there is no other way. Server1 [sharepointtoserver2] msdfs root=yes msdfs proxy =\server2\shareonserver2 Server2 [shareonserver2] Root
2024 Apr 17
1
howto achieve 'hide unreadable' for msdfs symlinks
On 16-04-2024 16:21, Konrad Jacobi via samba wrote: > hi, > on a samba domain member file server i'm using dfs root shares with > multiple msdfs symlinks pointing to other shares (on the same server), > which works fine. These linked shares have different access rights, > therefore a user might have access to one linked share but not to > another. > Another option is
2015 May 18
2
preexec and msdfs proxy
On 18/05/15 07:36, Daniel M?ller wrote: > Msdfs proxy is pointing to another instance of samba servers, it passes > through. > I think running preexec there on the other instance will do the trick. > > Greetings > Daniel > > > EDV Daniel M?ller > > Leitung EDV > Tropenklinik Paul-Lechler-Krankenhaus > Paul-Lechler-Str. 24 > 72076 T?bingen > Tel.:
2001 Mar 28
1
MSDFS extensions
Hello, I'm setting up MSDFS feature in samba-2.2.0-alpha3. It works very great! But I'm would wish an extension to the MSDFS functionality: Is it possible to implement a feature, so I could group junction points within directories? E.g.: [pub] path = /export/publicsmb msdfs root = yes PUB | +- dir1 <- directory manually created in /export/publicsmb | | |
2012 Jan 11
4
MSDFS on [homes] share for two samba servers
Hello list, we have two samba servers on two localities with bigger distance between them. On both localities there are organizational staff working. And I am trying to configure homedirectories for all of staff in this way: - all users will have same beginning part of URL path where is their homedir located (i.e. \\files.example.com\loginname) for unification and central acces - but because
2015 May 21
1
preexec and msdfs proxy
Hey, thanks for the input! I am looking into that. It is however a bit complicated due to the authentication lines and share connect lines being only related due to proximity in the log. It would probably work for most of the instances, but it would not be 100% viable, meaning we would be getting compaints and questions from our user "I ain't got that share?! WTF!!" I was going to
2018 Sep 20
3
per share way to not follow msdfs links
Re-sending with right email... msdfs root is set to "no" by default and is per-share. [myshare] msdfs root = no path = ... Should do the trick. Otherwise if mounting on linux you can also use the 'nodfs' mount option (mount.cifs //host/share/... /mnt/ -o ...,nodfs) to disable DFS resolving and automatic sub-mounting. Chad W Seys <cwseys at
2011 Apr 05
3
MSDFS - Can you hide folders with no access
Hello, i got a msdfs share running and now i want to hide folders from users who got no access to them anyway. For example: List of shares: test1 test2 User sees only: test1 Is something like that possible mit samba itself or does someone know a workaround to get it running like that ? Thanks for any ideas. A.Dura
2015 May 19
4
preexec and msdfs proxy
Hi, Thank you for you input! We tried that already. That, however, doesn't do the same thing. It is then simply a DFS server and not the "magical" msdfs proxy - yes the user can now click on a link to get to the desired spot, but the proxy function _automagically_ sends the user, when they access the msdfs share, to the netapp's readonly share without the extra click. And it
2024 Apr 16
2
howto achieve 'hide unreadable' for msdfs symlinks
hi, on a samba domain member file server i'm using dfs root shares with multiple msdfs symlinks pointing to other shares (on the same server), which works fine. These linked shares have different access rights, therefore a user might have access to one linked share but not to another. Is there any option to hide msdfs-symlinks to shares that a user cannot read? (the same as 'hide
2015 May 16
2
preexec and msdfs proxy
Hi, I was wondering if someone had any thoughts as to why "preexec" doesn't fire when "msdfs proxy" is used? Thank you, Greg Enlow -- Greg Enlow grenlow at hk.mailbox.de On 13 May 2015, at 11:18, Greg Enlow wrote: ok ok ... Names have been changed to protect the inoccent. This installation is being used to mitigate a server migration by providing read-only access