[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:20:35PM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
At 21:07 19.02.2003 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:03:57PM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
HI all,
here's a small fix for returning the correct sidtype in
Hi,
I am having another doubt that can we access linux
workstation from linux server or windows machines in the network
using samba?
Regards,
Rajesh.K
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 03:34, Michael B. Allen wrote:
I wondered what was meant by this too. I concluded it was just a zealous
choice of words. I believe he means that a) even after being granted an
oplock break the client may still find the file is locked and ultimately
get a sharing violation
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 03:34, Michael B. Allen wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:02:59 -0600
Um... Just curious, but how are oplocks are unreliable by definition?
I wondered what was meant by this too. I concluded it was just a zealous
choice of words. I believe he means that a) even after being
úÄÒÁ×ÓÔ×ÕÊÔÅ!
Cisco, Nortel, Sun, ÔÅÌÅÆÏÎÉÑ É ÐÒ. - ÏÄÎÉ ÉÚ ÌÕÞÛÉÈ ÃÅÎ × íÏÓË×Å!
éÍÅÅÔÓÑ ×ÏÚÍÏÖÎÏÓÔØ ÐÏÓÔÁ×ÌÑÔØ ÏÂÏÒÕÄÏ×ÁÎÉÅ CISCO, Nortel, Lucent, Sun É ÄÒ. ÐÏ ÃÅÎÁÍ
ÎÉÖÅ ÒÙÎÏÞÎÙÈ.
ðÒÉÞÅÍ ËÁË ÎÏ×ÏÅ ÏÂÏÒÕÄÏ×ÁÎÉÅ, ÔÁË É Â\Õ É ×ÏÓÓÔÁÎÏ×ÌÅÎÎÏÅ, ×ÓÅ Ó ÇÁÒÁÎÔÉÅÊ, ÞÅÒÅÚ
ÆÉÒÍÕ, ÓÏ ×ÓÅÍÉ
Andrew:
You've a valid point that the domain isn't checked (although it's
probably still correct for Enterprise Admins).
The idea was to do it automatically. Adding Domain Admins to admin
users in smb.conf would have the correct results unless somebody forgets
to do it. This is especially true
Michael Steffens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:20:35PM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
wrote:
At 21:07 19.02.2003 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:03:57PM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher
wrote:
HI all,
here's a small fix for
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 21:29, Ken Cross wrote:
Andrew:
You've a valid point that the domain isn't checked (although it's
probably still correct for Enterprise Admins).
The idea was to do it automatically. Adding Domain Admins to admin
users in smb.conf would have the correct results unless
Assuming you're using a recent redhat release... the default workstation
installation installs firewall rules which block incoming connections.
This is documented at redhat.com, along with instructions for modifying
the default rules.
raj rajesh kalagarla wrote:
Hi,
I am using samba on my
Hi!
I'm forwarding this message, which I orignally posted to the samba list,
in the hopes of reaching a wider audience for my question. Thanks for
considering my problem.
I'm working with Samba backed by a high performance filesystem. From a
Windows 2K and Windows XP client I'm trying to
I have set up a server with Redhat linux version 7.3 running Samba
2.2.7... initially this was configured using the SWAT. This particular
server is not only a file server but a webserver and provides database
support through MySQL. Shares and users have been set up and the system
has worked
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, raj rajesh kalagarla wrote:
Hi,
I am having another doubt that can we access linux
workstation from linux server or windows machines in the network
using samba?
I know what you mean. Sometimes I find myself doubting that gcc can do
what it does, but after a
We've been seeing a re-curring problem on one of our Samba servers:
Samba 2.2.7 running on HP-UX 11.0.
After a week of running relatively quietly, we'll get a rash of errors
in smbd.log associated with a call from a user that their connection is
getting dropped.
I_ve been dropped off twice
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:20:14PM +0100, Michael Steffens wrote:
Noticed why :)
The current caching code does also cache local lookups, meaning that
local groups (and machine SIDs when Samba is running as DC) can also
occur?
Hmm, I'm not sure whether the speed gain for local lookups
We have a share with mount points beneath it. Free disk space is incorrect
because samba always returns the free space in the top level directory of
the share. It is the same problem discussed before in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8th=4c04c4aeb2405
On 19 Feb 2003, HAKIZIMANA Claude [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you help me?
You need to ask this kind of question on the users list,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Martin
util_unistr.c/init_valid_table in HEAD and 3.0 causes a 64k leak every
time the configuration is loaded if there is no valid.dat file
installed. (The pointer to the malloc'd valid_table is clobbered by
the call to map_file.)
It looks like it is intended that the valid table be recreated on each
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 07:50:22PM -0800, Srikanta Shivanna wrote:
I noticed a difference in byte range locking behavior between Samba (2.2.x) and
Windows 2000 server, basically on Samba 2.2.x
with strict locking enabled, a client process which owns a shared byte range lock
can write to the
Hi Jeremy,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:20:14PM +0100, Michael Steffens wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure whether the speed gain for local lookups outweighs
the costs of having them wipe winbind SID mapping cache entries.
The latter ones look more expensive to me.
Hmmm. True,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 11:07:49AM -0800, Leo Qiu wrote:
Hi,
I seem to find some possible memory leaks in Samba
code. The patch is attached, Could you guys have a
look to check whether it is correct?
One of them was, one wasn't. I've added comments to the POSIX_ACL
code to make it clearer -
Hi Jim, Anthony,
It's nice to see that someone is working on the idmap backend stuff :-)
But I'm REALLY NOT FINE with a parameter name 'winbind backend' for this!!!
winbind backends are RPC and ADS.
we should name this parameter 'idmap backend' or something like that.
please, please change
Ray Frush wrote:
We've been seeing a re-curring problem on one of our Samba servers:
Samba 2.2.7 running on HP-UX 11.0.
After a week of running relatively quietly, we'll get a rash of errors
in smbd.log associated with a call from a user that their connection is
getting dropped.
I_ve been
22 matches
Mail list logo
