http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-April/084048.html
Using iptables to drop port 445, I eliminated the errors. I have not seen the error return nor experienced any other negative impact on performance.
Ed
At 08:36 AM Monday, 4/18/2005, Dimitri Yioulos wrote -=>
I've also seen a post somewhere (forgive, don't remember where "somewhere is) suggesting that "smb ports = 445" would corect this issue. So, which is it, 139 or 445?
Dimitri
On Monday 18 April 2005 05:55 am, Fabian Arrotin wrote: > I've already seen this in my logs... > A little search on Google shows me that Windows XP client try try to > connect to port 139 and 445 in parallel and drop the connection to port > 139 if the connect to 445 is successful. > In fact, no one was complaining about real network connection loss ... > More informations here : http://www.linuxaa.com/ftopic6568.html > Hope this helps. > > On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 03:58 -0300, Guido Lorenzutti wrote: > > I get this error message "getpeername failed. Error was Transport > > endpoint is not connected" in my logs very often. Any ideas how to fix > > it? > > > > Tnxs in advance -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Ed Kasky ~~~~~~~~~ Randomly Generated Quote (194 of 477): "Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle." - Abraham Lincoln
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
