similar to: server max protocol appropriate values

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 9000 matches similar to: "server max protocol appropriate values"

2015 Mar 06
1
server max protocol appropriate values
Hi Gaiseric, Do you happen to run into any oplock(opportunistic locking) issues? On my DC I have these issues with my group policy files. I'm hopeful using smb 2.0 will fix this problem. Thanks. On 3/4/2015 3:55 PM, Gaiseric Vandal wrote: > I have several Samba 3.6.24 domain controllers/file servers . > > > Server1 - Solaris 10, Samba 3.6.24, max protocol NT1. This is
2015 Mar 06
2
server max protocol appropriate values
Hi Marc, I'm a little confused. The values I provided for client and server max protocol are default values. At least according to the command 'samba-tool testparm -v'. I have not explicitly set them in my smb.conf file. I assume SMB3 became the default at some point with a release? I'm worried now that I must make explicit changes to my smb.conf file when default values are
2015 Mar 06
2
server max protocol appropriate values
Using Wireshark I see the protocol used as SMB2. Using a Windows workstation I tested by navigating to files and folders on my member server or to my sysvol folder on a DC. On 3/6/2015 8:56 AM, Rowland Penny wrote: > On 06/03/15 13:36, James wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> I'm a little confused. The values I provided for client and server >> max protocol are default
2015 Mar 04
0
server max protocol appropriate values
I have several Samba 3.6.24 domain controllers/file servers . Server1 - Solaris 10, Samba 3.6.24, max protocol NT1. This is the main file server. Server2 - Solaris 10, Samba 3.6.24, max protocol SMB2. 2ndary file server, not as heavily used as as server1. Server3 - Solaris 11, Samba 3.6.24, max protocol SMB2 . This was set up to replace Server 1. I also have a a Citrix XenApp
2015 Mar 06
2
server max protocol appropriate values
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,
2015 Mar 17
2
How to know which protocol version clients use?
Hello, I currently run samba with server min protocol = NT1 but I need to move towards server min protocol = SMB2 is there any way I can detect which clients still use the older protocol versions? I would like to estimate the impact of the change before i do close NT1/SMB1. Thank and kind regards, Heiner Billich
2015 Mar 06
3
server max protocol appropriate values
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
2016 Apr 02
2
Windows 10 and Samba 4.1.17-debian (NT Domain)
Hallo, Luke, Du meintest am 02.04.16: > Also, when I run testparm -svv | less I can find these four lines on > both the working and non-working servers: > server max protocol = SMB3 > server min protocol = LANMAN1 > client max protocol = NT1 > client min protocol = CORE Perhaps a max protocol = NT1 in the global section helps. And
2016 Apr 04
2
Windows 10 and Samba 4.1.17-debian (NT Domain)
Is that with an active directory domain controller? On Apr 3, 2016 11:21 PM, "barış tombul" <bbtombul at gmail.com> wrote: > my conf win10 no problem: > client NTLMv2 auth = Yes > client lanman auth = No > server max protocol = SMB3_11 > server min protocol = LANMAN1 > client max protocol = SMB3_11 > client min protocol = CORE > >
2016 Apr 19
3
mount cifs
On 04/19/2016 1:44 PM, Helmut Hullen wrote: > Hallo, Dale, > > Du meintest am 19.04.16: > >>> Found some more info: >>> >>> mount.cifs to mount shares from my DCs (samba 4.2.11) works >>> mount.cifs to mount shares from smbserver (also 4.2.11) does NOT >>> work. > [...] > >>> As for smb.conf options: similar on the DCs and the
2016 Apr 02
3
Windows 10 and Samba 4.1.17-debian (NT Domain)
OK, then here's the weird part. I have another server, hosting other files, lets my Windows 10 system connect. The main server won't though. They are both running Debian Jessie 8.3, and Samba 4.1.17-debian. Below is the /etc/samba/smb.conf file *that works with Windows 7 and 10*: [global] workgroup = SD57 netbios name = SAMBA server string = sss interfaces
2019 Apr 30
4
Windows clients require reboot once a day in order to access mapped drives
Hai, ... > > As I said, where is the fault, is it something that Windows 10 is or > isn't doing, or is it Samba ? > > Well, we cannot change Windows, so on that basis, I think you should > make a Samba bug report and let it work through the system. > > Rowland Well, yes, we can change windows, by allowing/disallowing SMB1. Which might help in detecting whats
2019 Jul 22
5
client min protocol = SMB2
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
2015 Mar 06
0
server max protocol appropriate values
On 06/03/15 13:36, James wrote: > Hi Marc, > > I'm a little confused. The values I provided for client and server > max protocol are default values. At least according to the command > 'samba-tool testparm -v'. I have not explicitly set them in my smb.conf > file. I assume SMB3 became the default at some point with a release? I'm > worried now that I must
2016 Dec 05
4
client max protocol = SMB3 ?
Hi All, The man page for smb.conf says that 'client max protocol = default' is the same as 'client max protocol = NT1' for the HEAD samba version. Is there some reason I should not change that to SMB3? Thanks! Chad.
2017 May 17
1
browsing problem with minimum protocol SMB2
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}]
2016 May 11
4
Synology NAS Samba Upgrade breaks "Classic" domain membership
I have a Synology NAS array appliance. It is linux based and uses samba for file sharing. Normally the config is done via a gui interface but you can ssh to the array. The domain controllers are running Samba 3.6.x in classic domain mode. I have member servers running 3.6.x and 4.3.8. no problem. I recently updated the Synology "OS." The current version of samba is
2017 May 24
1
Automatic SMB3 negotiation
Hello.. My server have this settings in [global] section: max protocol = smb3 min protocol = smb2 When I try connect to server using my clients (Centos 7.3/Ubuntu 16.04) I can't because clients still trying NT1. I must explicity add in smb.conf on clients the option ' client max protocol = smb3' and the connections works again. The question is: If I have defined the min and max
2014 Sep 02
1
Samba shares not refreshing in Windows after upgrade
I'm working with Samba on Ubuntu. We recently upgrade to Ubuntu 14.04 and with it Samba 3.6.3 to 4.1.6 (Version: 2:4.1.6+dfsg-1ubuntu2.14.04.3). Since the upgrade, the mapped network drives on Windows do not refresh the shared files. It maps to the location without any problems and you can look at the content of the share. If you exit the window and then create a new file or even touch an
2016 Apr 02
1
Windows 10 and Samba 4.1.17-debian (NT Domain)
On 02/04/16 20:02, Luke Barone wrote: > Also, when I run testparm -svv | less I can find these four lines on > both the working and non-working servers: > > server max protocol = SMB3 > server min protocol = LANMAN1 > client max protocol = NT1 > client min protocol = CORE > > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Luke Barone