As someone with historic but aging knowledge of the installation in
question, I'll add a couple of observations from the "for what it's
worth" dept...
The first thing that raises my eyebrows about this is that the
address 128.84.247.9 belongs to an ethernet switch. I don't know
if you changed it before posting in order to obfuscate the details
for your own protection, or if that's really what was in the log
file, but if it's really what's in the log file I would want to
track down how amanda came up with this address. It can't be right.
Secondly you said the amanda server is named "herman", but you don't
have herman registered in your DNS. You didn't say who the Samba
intermediary is but I'm jumping to the conclusion that you're using
"herman" for that function, too. Same comment as above, perhaps you
changed the name in your message to protect the innocent. I imagine
the Samba intermediary machine is going to have to exist in the DNS
in order for Samba backups to work properly.
-Mitch
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, John R. Jackson wrote:
> >we are getting this intermittent error:
> >...
> >added interface ip=128.84.247.9 bcast=128.84.247.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
> >added interface ip=128.84.247.9 bcast=128.84.247.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
> >added interface ip=128.84.247.9 bcast=128.84.247.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
> >added interface ip=128.84.247.9 bcast=128.84.247.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
> >read_socket_with_timeout: timeout read. read error = Connection reset by peer.
> >session setup failed: code 0
> >
> >The multiple "added interface" messages we don't see in any
> >successful transactions.
> >.
> >Repeatedly running smbclient by hand: ...
> >we see only single interface messages, no errors or timeouts. We do
> >notice that the response is instantaneous.
> >
> >Is it possible that the quick response is confusing sendsize?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> The only thing I can guess is that at the time Amanda runs, something
> else was going on with that machine (or its network connection, etc)
> and Samba really couldn't talk to it. If you had tried your test right
> then, I'll bet it would have acted exactly like what Amanda reported.
>
> I didn't look at the Samba code, but as a guess, the multiple "added
> interface" lines are retries by them while trying to set up the
> connection, and they eventually gave up.
>
> >We are backing up other NT and W2k clients successfully and only see
> >this error on this client.
>
> That would also seem to imply something odd about this client.
>
> You might ask on the Samba mailing lists. I doubt it's a problem with
> their code, but they might have a better idea of what it means and if
> there are possible workarounds (longer timeouts, more retries, etc).
>
> >hurf
>
> John R. Jackson, Technical Software Specialist, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
