On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:25:55PM -0300, SALOME Alexandre wrote:
and into the file /etc/smbuser, the command: cs02929 = eng.processo.
Try it without the quotes around eng.processo.
Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 04:39:59PM -0600, Michael Heironimus wrote:
It's a distributed filesystem for Windows, allowing you to split the
logical view of shares from the physical locations. You have one
top-level DFS share that can be mounted by 95 and newer clients (as far
[ ... ]
But I guess
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 04:30:58PM +0100, Frank Matthieß wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 02:51:51PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all, I am new to Samba and from what I understand Unix partitions can be
shared by NT machines how do I revers this that a NT drive is seen by Unix
as file
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:55:05PM -0500, David Shapiro wrote:
Hello,
Getting during configure the infamous error: No locking available. Running
Samba would be unsafe solaris
Dunno why you would get this, solaris works fine of course.
Maybe something screwy with your gcc installation?
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:13:17PM -0600, Matt Nelson wrote:
Since I posted this over the weekend, I thought I'd throw it out one more
time to see if anyone else might see it and has any ideas on this.
I didn't know samba could serve macs. Does the mac speak SMB?
(Long time since I used macs)
Hi,
I added these lines to smb.conf:
kernel op locks = false
op locks = false
strict locking = true
so I could see some locks from the unix level.
It worked sorta, I see the locks for big files
(but not the locks I was expecting), but for little
files it shows nothing:
Hi,
I added these lines to smb.conf:
kernel op locks = false
op locks = false
strict locking = true
so I could see some locks from the unix level.
It worked sorta, I see the locks for big files
(but not the locks I was expecting), but for little
files it shows nothing:
With a single server, settings security = server and
password server = pdc1 pdc2', I can successfully
authenticate against two entirely different PDCs
depending on which order I put the two machines in
the 'password server' list.
Is there someway of forcing clients from either
domain to
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 04:56:03PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Matthew Hannigan wrote:
With a single server, settings security = server and
password server = pdc1 pdc2', I can successfully
authenticate against two entirely different PDCs
depending
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:36:10PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:35:02PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:48:49PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re:
[Samba] Re: How Samba let us down':
Ok, as promised, a brief explaination of
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:44:28AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:08:10PM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
And Solaris? At least they're autoconfigured to assume kernel oplocks
according to testparm, and the docs say this is done only if the support
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:15:08PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ah, but it doesn't really matter *what* the value of kernel oplocks is,
if you don't have kernel support for oplocks. :) The only other option
My bad, I was confusing options 'op locks' and 'kernel op locks'
Still, it would be
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 06:36:10PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:35:02PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:48:49PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote about 'Re:
[Samba] Re: How Samba let us down':
Ok, as promised, a brief explaination of
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:44:28AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:08:10PM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
And Solaris? At least they're autoconfigured to assume kernel oplocks
according to testparm, and the docs say this is done only if the support
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 08:15:08PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ah, but it doesn't really matter *what* the value of kernel oplocks is,
if you don't have kernel support for oplocks. :) The only other option
My bad, I was confusing options 'op locks' and 'kernel op locks'
Still, it would be
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:14:41PM -0700, Marc Jacobsen wrote:
[ ... ]
Similarly, record locks and share mode locks from SMB clients are both
ignored by NFS clients/other UNIX processes (with the possible exception
of newer Linux systems, they might actually enforce share mode locks).
In
So how/why would splitting these scripts be a good thing?
It's possible to not run nmbd at all, and in some
circumstances that's what you would want.
Matt
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:14:41PM -0700, Marc Jacobsen wrote:
[ ... ]
Similarly, record locks and share mode locks from SMB clients are both
ignored by NFS clients/other UNIX processes (with the possible exception
of newer Linux systems, they might actually enforce share mode locks).
In
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:10:14AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:02:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:38:55AM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
I have read in the docs that Samba locks and Unix locks
_DO_ notice each other
19 matches
Mail list logo
