Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:10 -0700, Doug VanLeuven wrote:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, then point samba at itself
(I've been using windows servers for WINS)
wins server = 127.0.0.1
----
you're wrong - wins support = yes is sufficient
Thanks for the correction.
----
PS - You could have migrated your server with just about an identical
configuration to the 2.2 one and had just about identical characteristics.
----
One of the dangers of a mail list is getting wildly different answers
based upon people's recollection of documentation that has continually
evolved/improved and thus in many respects, answers that deter someone
from checking the smb.conf man page or the official how-to or even the
simplified by example is likely counter-productive.
Craig,
I'm not sure if you're dumping on me now or not.
Even samba 2 required WINS to function across subnets.
FWIW, if what was said is true and it worked in samba 2, then either:
1. samba 2 was working on one subnet, and it was migrated to samba3
at the same time the network was expanded.
2. samba 2 was working with enough addresses in lmhosts files to
allow basic connectivity from windows clients.
Either way, it was probably a stand-alone workstation.
I think it's accurate to say samba 3 can be configured to be a
stand-alone workstation and that the configuration files would
be very similar. Then & now.
One of the things that became apparent to me as I switched from Samba
2.2.x to Samba 3.0.x was that even though many of the directives seemed
to stay the same, their meaning changed enough to force you to rethink
the configuration - which I guess is the main point of upgrading/reading
the documentation. The fact that the documentation covers the situation
of upgrading from Samba 2 to Samba 3 seems to re-enforce the notion that
the documentation is the place to start and if/when things aren't
working as expected, then post up but it seems certain that if you
follow the documentation, most things are going to work without much
fuss.
I agree completely. But if one didn't really want any of the newer
functionality, one could emulate the older methods easier, perhaps, than
assimilating the newer concepts. Ergo the PS. Maybe I should have said
if one has an insufficient amount of time and willingness to study the
documentation available for samba as a PDC, perhaps one should scale
down one's goals to a more realistically achievable workgroup member.
You know, given the time constraints and motivational factors :-)
When you get someone that lacks a commitment to the configuration that
they desire to achieve and then it appears that a combination of 1) not
understanding Windows Networking technology, 2) not digesting the
documentation, 3) sheer frustration evidenced by massive changes to
smb.conf file, that all are working against the administrator and then
it would seem the best course of action is to suggest to this
administrator that he review the documentation.
I'll second that.
In this particular instance, the OP wants to stop logging errors about
WINS server and when I tell the OP that he should put 'wins support =
yes' in his smb.conf and that all goes away, he says "I'm not using a
WINS server and I don't need a WINS server". That's when I knew it was
time to remove myself from help mode and suggest that OP rely upon
documentation.
If you gave a poll, I'm sure you'd find lots of goodwill from people
you've helped in the past.
I just thought I'd try from a different (dangerous) perspective ;-).
Regards, Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
