similar to: Running and testing SMB2 under RHEL 5 and RHEL 6

Hello, This is situation: * [netApps SMB-server] [RHEL-7.1-Client]* | =SMB 2/3= | | sending data>65k Fail | sending data<65k Passes Max Write/Read Size[65535]

I am using samba 3.5.4 (and have tried 3.5.6) and have noticed that samba does not respond to SMB2 negotiate requests. If I use a SMB request to negotiate SMB2 it works fine. Does anyone know if there is there a reason for this, or is it a bug? I have tried searching for an answer but haven't been able to come up with anything. thanks, Mike

Hello, on our servers we have shares with no authentication required (no DC, security = share, guest ok = yes). Worked fine for years, but now with Samba 3.5.4, when I enable smb2, Windows 7 clients can not connect anymore to these shares. Looking at the logs, I can see : [...] [2010/08/25 10:13:08.058358, 3] auth/auth_sam.c:399(check_sam_security) check_sam_security: Couldn't find

Good morning! I'm reviewing some corporate storage setups involving NetApps, where the NetApp stores what they call "UNIX Qtrees". So far, so good: those allow the setting of access to the data with NFS4 ACL's, which are fairly sophisticated and allow multiple groups or even multiple users to be granted write access.or read access, besides the normal UNIX group owner. That works

Hi Rowland, -<| Quoting Rowland Penny via samba <rpenny at samba.org>, on Wednesday, 2019-02-13 05:01:19 PM |>- > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:16:21 +0100 > Philipp Gesang via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > -<| Quoting L.P.H. van Belle via samba <belle at bazuin.nl>, on > > Wednesday, 2019-02-13 04:59:55 PM |>- > > >

So I just spent a frustrating day trying to get smbclient from 4.2.x and master connecting to a NetApp 8.2 box using SMB2 or SMB3 with NTLM auth. Short answer - it doesn't work :-(. Longer answer - the NetApp is choking on something inside the SPNEGO NTLMSSP packets we're sending it - giving the error that it couldn't parse the SPNEGO packet. Unfortunately (and knowing bugger-all

Hi Samba list! I was very excited that SMB2 is finally working with samba 3.6.0 - great job!! I just know that SMB2 has a smaller command set compared to SMB1 and this, beside many other rebuilds of the code makes it faster As I am completely new to the file transfer protocol world, I want to ask a few basic things: - is Samba backward compatible ... xp can't use SMB2 as far as I

I have a classic NT4 domain with the PDC also the wins server. With the recent ransomware problem, we're trying to remove SMB1 and below protocols. However when I do this, the browse list is gone. Hosts can access properly the shares, but they have to know exactly \\machine\share in order to to connect. The same thing from a linux client: smbclient -L {PDC} -m SMB2 Domain=[{MYDOMAIN}]

Greetings list, I just upgraded to samba 3.6.0 trying SMB2. Though Windows 2008 R2 can work with SMB2 shares just fine, I'm unable to access SMB2 shares with mount.cifs or smbclient, even with "-m smb2" specified -- I get this "Unrecognised protocol level smb2", whereas smbclient comes with samba-client-3.6.0-63.1.rpm. So is this supported yet (from client side) or I

I did not set max protocol to SMB2 in smb.cnf, I don't want to force SMB2 selection if SMB3 can be used by a client. The machine is a Windows 7, so is SMB2 compliant. Le 22/07/2019 ? 11:44, Gaiseric Vandal via samba a ?crit?: > I would guess that changing the min protocol does not affect existing > connections unless you were to restart samba. > > Is the max protocol set to at

I am trying to setup a SAMBA server using 3.5.0rc2 to test SMB2. Without using SMB2, my windows 7 was able to browse the public share listed on the server anonymously. However, when SMB2 is enabled, a network error message is always popped up when I try to browse the samba server from Win 7. I have looked at the trace. It seemed to me that Win 7 had troubles accessing wkssvc, srvsvc, etc.

Hi all, At the moment we are running Debian squeeze with stock samba 3.5.6. and are testing some new samba installations from ubuntu 12.04, centos 6.4 and debian wheezy. All running in a VM on a XenServer. The samba servers are member of a 2008R2 domain, using smb1 protocol all are running fine and we get a constant 90MB/s (big file transfer) on our 1GB network. We would like to enable smb2

hi All, We have a glusterfs cluster with 5 nodes on Ubuntu 12.04 amd64. We use this smb.conf: [global] socket options = IPTOS_THROUGHPUT TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY SO_SNDBUF=131072 SO_RCVBUF=131072 read raw = yes server string = %h write raw = yes #oplocks = yes max xmit = 131072 dead time = 15 getwd cache = yes use sendfile=yes block size = 131072 load printers = no aio read size

Hi forks: I've been testing SMB2 with samba 3.6.4 performance these days, and I find a weird benchmark that SMB2 write performance is slower than SMB1 in 10Gb ethernet network. Server ----------------------- Linux: Redhat Enterprise 6.1 x64 Kernel: 2.6.31 x86_64 Samba: 3.6.4 (almost using the default configuration) Network: Chelsio T4 T420-SO-CR 10GbE network adapter RAID: Adaptec 51645 RAID

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:20:05PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:16:34PM +0100, Ralph B?hme wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:08:31PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:05:44PM +0100, Markus Doits wrote: > > > > > > > > On 23.01.15 19:57, Miguel Medalha wrote: > > > > > I am using

Andreas, On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:37:07PM +0200, awl1 via samba wrote: > Before I follow your advice to move this whole issue/topic to the > samba-technical alias and start over there with a clean description of the > scenario and the findings, I have two simple questions: > > 1) I plan to use a new, reproducible test scenario with 2000 random small > files with a file length

Hello, We are running some legacy software that instructs us to, via Windows registry settings, disable all oplocks and SMB2 entirely on each Windows workstation that connects to the Samba share where the software is hosted. The software maintainers give dire warners of corruption, etc., if oplocks (and SMB2) are left enabled. We?ve run this software off of a Samba share for 20 years and have

On 23.01.15 19:57, Miguel Medalha wrote: > I am using Samba 4.1.16 with smb2/3 and symbolic links are working alright. > > Following the smb.conf man page, I use: > > unix extensions = no > wide links = yes > > Unfortunately this still does not work for me - can you really make a symbolic link ("ln -s ...") when you are connected with smb2/3? Does

Hi, I'm using libsmbclient library built from source3 directory of samba-3.6.7. When I connect to a vista/2008 server using this libsmbclient library, communication is happening in SMB1 protocol and NOT in SMB2. Please note that I've enabled SMB2 by adding following line to smb.conf max protocol = SMB2 Does libsmbclient library built from source3 directory of samba-3.6.7 supports SMB2?

Hello, Thank you ! I add server min protocol = SMB2_02 to smb.cnf All clients are now using SMB2_10 as minimum protocol version May you indicate me the difference between "client min protocol" and "server min protocol" ? "server min protocol" is to use on a domain member "client min protocol" is to use in which case ? Should I also set client min