Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On 7/8/23 03:00, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: If you don't have a floppy drive - don't set it up in the BIOS, If you're running off a disk that's connected via USB - it will be slower than the same disk directly attached to SATA. Debian 12 is (probably) no slower than Debian 11 - but it is more up to date. Some file sizes do get bigger, however, and the steady state is that you never have quite enough memory as newer releases are made. Thanks! deb12 has run smoothly on my thin client. but on my more capable pc it has usb problem from time to time. i have planed to troubleshoot with spare usb hub, but it takes time, and i have little incentive to do so as deb11 meets my needs. Thanks anyway!
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 12:34:48AM -0400, hlyg wrote: > deb12 is slow, it complains floppy error. in bios floppy drive is set to > 1.44M though i have no floppy drive. this isn't problem for deb10/11. it's > easy to correct bios setting but i am afraid deb12 is still slow. > If you don't have a floppy drive - don't set it up in the BIOS, If you're running off a disk that's connected via USB - it will be slower than the same disk directly attached to SATA. Debian 12 is (probably) no slower than Debian 11 - but it is more up to date. Some file sizes do get bigger, however, and the steady state is that you never have quite enough memory as newer releases are made. > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access USB SanDisk > 3.2Gen1 1.00 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6 > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] 60088320 512-byte logical > blocks: (30.8 GB/28.7 GiB) > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00 > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Write cache: disabled, read > cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sdc: sdc1 sdc2 sdc3 > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI removable disk > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: random: crng init done > ... > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: I/O error, dev fd0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags > 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 2 > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: floppy: error 10 while reading block 0 > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: I/O error, dev fd0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags > 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 2 > Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: floppy: error 10 while reading block 0 > Changed to respond to the list first With every good wish, Andy Cater
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
deb11 also complains floppy error, but it isn't slow
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
deb12 is slow, it complains floppy error. in bios floppy drive is set to 1.44M though i have no floppy drive. this isn't problem for deb10/11. it's easy to correct bios setting but i am afraid deb12 is still slow. Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: scsi 4:0:0:0: Direct-Access USB SanDisk 3.2Gen1 1.00 PQ: 0 ANSI: 6 Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] 60088320 512-byte logical blocks: (30.8 GB/28.7 GiB) Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Write Protect is off Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00 Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Write cache: disabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sdc: sdc1 sdc2 sdc3 Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: sd 4:0:0:0: [sdc] Attached SCSI removable disk Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: random: crng init done ... Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: I/O error, dev fd0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 2 Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: floppy: error 10 while reading block 0 Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: I/O error, dev fd0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 2 Jul 06 23:50:00 bw kernel: floppy: error 10 while reading block 0
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
Greg Wooledge wrote on 7/5/23 08:59: I'm still waiting for setup details to be provided. Is "sh" the user's I was merely trying to inform the OP that he wasn't alone in seeing this "Transport endpoint is not connected" message coming from bookworm when prior versions of debian stable were silent when performing the same activity. I wasn't actually seeking help -- if I had've been, I would have made some attempt to get to the bottom of the problem first, and then provided complete details here if I were unable to fix it myself. None of that seemed worthwhile just for a message that doesn't seem to be indicating a real problem. So you were going beyond my expectations when you attempted to help, and I'm sorry for the miscommunication. Doc -- Web: http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 04:49:04PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 08:15:14AM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote: > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote on 7/4/23 22:23: > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, since upgrading to bookworm, I see: > > > > sh: 0: getcwd() failed: Transport endpoint is not connected > > > > when I ssh into the upgraded box. > > > > > > This seems to be coming from getcwd() (aka get current working > > > directory, see man page). Asking the intertubes, it seems to > > > happen often when it or its ancestors are mounted over FUSE. > > > > > > > This is a plain ol' ssh login, so I don't think that FUSE is involved. > > I think this happens "next", after login and hasn't much to do with > ssh. Somethingsomething session [1] (waves hands). > > Anything in the logs? I'm still waiting for setup details to be provided. Is "sh" the user's login shell, or is it some kind of transient shell that's being used internally by ssh, e.g. to set up privilege separation? (I somehow doubt a shell is used there, but I'm grasping at straws because we're being given no useful details at all.) Is /bin/sh a symlink to dash, or to bash? If I remember correctly, bash has to do a getcwd() at startup time to set up certain variables for POSIX conformance. But I'm going off of memories from years ago. And I don't know whether other shells do things the same way. > > > Are you able to access all the directories you expect to? How > > > is, e.g. the user's $HOME mounted? Its parent? > > > > Yep... See, this is not a complete answer. Is $HOME on an NFS server? An iSCSI disk? An sshfs mount? Is autofs or another automounter involved in any way? Show us the relevant line(s) in fstab and in the output of "mount"? Is "sh" the user's shell, or is their shell /bin/bash or something else? Anything you could tell us would be better than just "Yep".
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 08:15:14AM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote: > to...@tuxteam.de wrote on 7/4/23 22:23: > > > > > > > FWIW, since upgrading to bookworm, I see: > > >sh: 0: getcwd() failed: Transport endpoint is not connected > > > when I ssh into the upgraded box. > > > > This seems to be coming from getcwd() (aka get current working > > directory, see man page). Asking the intertubes, it seems to > > happen often when it or its ancestors are mounted over FUSE. > > > > This is a plain ol' ssh login, so I don't think that FUSE is involved. I think this happens "next", after login and hasn't much to do with ssh. Somethingsomething session [1] (waves hands). Anything in the logs? > > > I have no idea why. (And, just to be clear, this has never happened > > > before, > > > through many releases of debian stable.) > > > > > > I'm assuming, for now, that: > > > 1. I can use the box as usual despite the message; > > > 2. the problem will be fixed at some point soon. > > > > > > I haven't seen any other obvious problems if I proceed to use the ssh > > > session as normal. > > > > Are you able to access all the directories you expect to? How > > is, e.g. the user's $HOME mounted? Its parent? > > Yep... can't see any unusual behaviour at all. So far, anyway. > > If I get some time, I'll try to figure out exactly where and why it's > happening; but at this point, since it never happened before in 15 years of > sshing into the box and there seems to be no obvious consequences other than > the appearance of the message at login, I'm assuming there's nothing really > wrong and it's some bug -- probably a race condition, perhaps involving > systemd, since that seems to have a history of them -- introduced in > bookworm that will get fixed fairly quickly. Makes sense :) Cheers [1] session is a huge and mushy thing. -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
to...@tuxteam.de wrote on 7/4/23 22:23: FWIW, since upgrading to bookworm, I see: sh: 0: getcwd() failed: Transport endpoint is not connected when I ssh into the upgraded box. This seems to be coming from getcwd() (aka get current working directory, see man page). Asking the intertubes, it seems to happen often when it or its ancestors are mounted over FUSE. This is a plain ol' ssh login, so I don't think that FUSE is involved. I have no idea why. (And, just to be clear, this has never happened before, through many releases of debian stable.) I'm assuming, for now, that: 1. I can use the box as usual despite the message; 2. the problem will be fixed at some point soon. I haven't seen any other obvious problems if I proceed to use the ssh session as normal. Are you able to access all the directories you expect to? How is, e.g. the user's $HOME mounted? Its parent? Yep... can't see any unusual behaviour at all. So far, anyway. If I get some time, I'll try to figure out exactly where and why it's happening; but at this point, since it never happened before in 15 years of sshing into the box and there seems to be no obvious consequences other than the appearance of the message at login, I'm assuming there's nothing really wrong and it's some bug -- probably a race condition, perhaps involving systemd, since that seems to have a history of them -- introduced in bookworm that will get fixed fairly quickly. Doc -- Web: http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 01:40:18PM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote: > hlyg wrote on 6/28/23 21:32: > > > notification message: Transport endpoint is not connected > > > > FWIW, since upgrading to bookworm, I see: > sh: 0: getcwd() failed: Transport endpoint is not connected > when I ssh into the upgraded box. This seems to be coming from getcwd() (aka get current working directory, see man page). Asking the intertubes, it seems to happen often when it or its ancestors are mounted over FUSE. > I have no idea why. (And, just to be clear, this has never happened before, > through many releases of debian stable.) > > I'm assuming, for now, that: > 1. I can use the box as usual despite the message; > 2. the problem will be fixed at some point soon. > > I haven't seen any other obvious problems if I proceed to use the ssh > session as normal. Are you able to access all the directories you expect to? How is, e.g. the user's $HOME mounted? Its parent? Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
hlyg wrote on 6/28/23 21:32: notification message: Transport endpoint is not connected FWIW, since upgrading to bookworm, I see: sh: 0: getcwd() failed: Transport endpoint is not connected when I ssh into the upgraded box. I have no idea why. (And, just to be clear, this has never happened before, through many releases of debian stable.) I'm assuming, for now, that: 1. I can use the box as usual despite the message; 2. the problem will be fixed at some point soon. I haven't seen any other obvious problems if I proceed to use the ssh session as normal. Doc -- Web: http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On 7/4/23 16:39, Stanislav Vlasov wrote: Try fio with config copied from /usr/share/doc/fio/examples/ssd-test.fio In config set appropriate size and directory and run `fio new_config` Thank Vlasov! i have never used fio, its manual is long, it isn't foolproof. i have to back up for write test, which means that i have to find additional disk space, but all my disks at this moment are nearly full. anyway these 64G or 32G usb sticks are not costly. it isn't worth my effort. Thanks anyway!
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
вт, 4 июл. 2023 г. в 13:25, hlyg : > i have installed deb12 in usb disk by kingston, it's slow > > today i install it in sandisk's, it's normal(fast) > > i don't know how to use tool to test usb disk speed Try fio with config copied from /usr/share/doc/fio/examples/ssd-test.fio In config set appropriate size and directory and run `fio new_config` -- Stanislav
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
i have installed deb12 in usb disk by kingston, it's slow today i install it in sandisk's, it's normal(fast) i don't know how to use tool to test usb disk speed
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
Thank David, 3 devices are plugged to usb hub: wifi adapter, receiver for wireless keyboard/mouse and usb lamp for power only. i don't have energy to troubleshoot it as it's ok with buster and bullseye, problem is with deb12, not with my usb device it's not too bad that newly stable deb12 isn't ready for me as deb10/11 meet my needs
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On Fri 30 Jun 2023 at 13:06:49 (+0800), hlyg wrote: > Thank David! i suppose it close wifi connection (say goodbye to hot > spot of cell phone) as i shutdown, i don't have network FS So I assume you use have a wifi dongle, connected to the hub, that communicates with the tethered phone's hotspot. > i don't have usb disk plugged to usb hub So what's the hub for? > bookworm for both i386 and amd64 seem uncomfortable with my usb hub. > > last few lines below show errors > > i am now using bullseye, bookworm isn't stable enough for me Just because of this hub, or for other reasons? Sorry, but I only see snippets of information, and no intentions/reasons. > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device > number 2 using ehci-pci > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: New USB device found, > idVendor=14cd, idProduct=8601, bcdDevice= 0.00 > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, > Product=3, SerialNumber=0 > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: Product: USB 2.0 Hub > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: Manufacturer: USB Device > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 1-2:1.0: USB hub found > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 1-2:1.0: 4 ports detected > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: new high-speed USB device > number 3 using ehci-pci > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: new high-speed USB device > number 4 using ehci-pci > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb1-port3: attempt power cycle I don't have much experience of interpreting these numbers, but isn't this error coming from the device plugged into the hub (1-3) rather than the hub itself (1-2)? Cheers, David.
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
Thank David! i suppose it close wifi connection (say goodbye to hot spot of cell phone) as i shutdown, i don't have network FS i don't have usb disk plugged to usb hub bookworm for both i386 and amd64 seem uncomfortable with my usb hub. last few lines below show errors i am now using bullseye, bookworm isn't stable enough for me Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb2: New USB device found, idVendor=1d6b, idProduct=0001, bcdDevice= 6.01 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb2: New USB device strings: Mfr=3, Product=2, SerialNumber=1 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb2: Product: OHCI PCI host controller Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb2: Manufacturer: Linux 6.1.0-9-686-pae ohci_hcd Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb2: SerialNumber: :00:13.0 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 2-0:1.0: USB hub found Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 2-0:1.0: 4 ports detected Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: ohci-pci :00:13.1: OHCI PCI host controller Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: ohci-pci :00:13.1: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 3 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: ohci-pci :00:13.1: irq 19, io mem 0xfe02d000 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 sda4 < sda5 sda6 > Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Attached SCSI disk Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb3: New USB device found, idVendor=1d6b, idProduct=0001, bcdDevice= 6.01 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb3: New USB device strings: Mfr=3, Product=2, SerialNumber=1 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb3: Product: OHCI PCI host controller Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb3: Manufacturer: Linux 6.1.0-9-686-pae ohci_hcd Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb3: SerialNumber: :00:13.1 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 3-0:1.0: USB hub found Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 3-0:1.0: 4 ports detected Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci-pci Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=14cd, idProduct=8601, bcdDevice= 0.00 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=3, SerialNumber=0 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: Product: USB 2.0 Hub Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-2: Manufacturer: USB Device Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 1-2:1.0: USB hub found Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: hub 1-2:1.0: 4 ports detected Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: new high-speed USB device number 3 using ehci-pci Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: new high-speed USB device number 4 using ehci-pci Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb 1-3: device descriptor read/64, error -71 Jun 27 05:38:10 debian kernel: usb usb1-port3: attempt power cycle
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On Wed 28 Jun 2023 at 23:32:56 (-0400), hlyg wrote: > my general impression of bookworm for i386 is slow > > i suppose support for i386 becomes poor as its user base shrink I'm guessing that new releases use more room as they increase in complexity and functionality. This can result in more swapping, for example. With bullseye, I ceased trying to run Firefox on an i386 with 500MB RAM. > even shutdown is slow, i see it painfully show " Transport endpoint is > not connected" So is it waiting for a timeout to expire? > my usb extension line might cause trouble, it connect to back of pc > case at one end, at the other end is usb hub, it's handy because it > turns one usb socket to four sockets, and it works most of time, but > sometime it can cause trouble, i notice data transfer becomes slow > thru it > > msg in last line is in red, such thing as device name has been edited > for privacy (wlx123), usb wifi adapter is connected to usb hub Do you have other things plugged into the hub with mounted filesystems? If so, what sort of filesystems? > Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: For info, please visit > https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/ > Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: Listening on LPF/wlx123... > Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: Sending on LPF/wlx123... > Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: Sending on Socket/fallback > Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: DHCPRELEASE of 192.168.43.89 on > wlx123 to 192.168.43.208 port 67 > Jun 28 20:10:14 debian systemd-journald[824]: Failed to send READY=1 > notification message: Transport endpoint is not connected Do you only see this message at closedown? Do you have any filesystems mounted via the network? Cheers, David.
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On 6/29/23 09:20, Charles Curley wrote: Two thoughts here. * Does your hub use an external power supply or does it depend on the computer for power? If the latter, that could be a problem if the total load exceeds what the computer supplies. * It could be just a loose connector, although I haven't seen that in a long time. It is possible to fix this for some types of connectors (RCA connectors being particularly susceptible) by crimping the connector very lightly with a pair of pliers. Thank Charles Curley! my usb hub hasn't external power supply, i don't think loose connector cause trouble because it's ok with buster and bullseye
Re: Transport endpoint is not connected
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 23:32:56 -0400 hlyg wrote: > my usb extension line might cause trouble, it connect to back of pc > case at one end, at the other end is usb hub, it's handy because it > turns one usb socket to four sockets, and it works most of time, but > sometime it can cause trouble, i notice data transfer becomes slow > thru it Two thoughts here. * Does your hub use an external power supply or does it depend on the computer for power? If the latter, that could be a problem if the total load exceeds what the computer supplies. * It could be just a loose connector, although I haven't seen that in a long time. It is possible to fix this for some types of connectors (RCA connectors being particularly susceptible) by crimping the connector very lightly with a pair of pliers. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Transport endpoint is not connected
my general impression of bookworm for i386 is slow i suppose support for i386 becomes poor as its user base shrink even shutdown is slow, i see it painfully show " Transport endpoint is not connected" my usb extension line might cause trouble, it connect to back of pc case at one end, at the other end is usb hub, it's handy because it turns one usb socket to four sockets, and it works most of time, but sometime it can cause trouble, i notice data transfer becomes slow thru it msg in last line is in red, such thing as device name has been edited for privacy (wlx123), usb wifi adapter is connected to usb hub Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: For info, please visit https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/ Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: Listening on LPF/wlx123... Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: Sending on LPF/wlx123... Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: Sending on Socket/fallback Jun 28 20:10:14 debian ifdown[752]: DHCPRELEASE of 192.168.43.89 on wlx123 to 192.168.43.208 port 67 Jun 28 20:10:14 debian systemd-journald[824]: Failed to send READY=1 notification message: Transport endpoint is not connected
Unable to identify the local socket: Transport endpoint is not connected
Hi all, Since this morning I suddenly get the following error in my log: oct 20 08:47:47 localhost pure-ftpd: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [ERROR] Unable to identify the local socket: Transport endpoint is not connected These log entries appear at fixed intervals: at 2,3,47 and 48 minutes past the hour. I didn't change anything to my server this morning. So I'm wondering what it could be. I tried: 1. restarting pure-ftpd, but since it is started from inetd that obviously didn't help. :-) 2. I found that I can make a ftp connection to the server, ftp [EMAIL PROTECTED] works just fine and I'm getting the standard welcom text. But once I enter a ls, the connection hangs. 3. I googled for the error message, but found only some unrelated or unanswered archived mails. 4. looked into the cron files, because of the regular interval, but didn't see anyting strange I run the standard pure-ftpd package on sarge 3.1 from inetd. Port 21 is closed on my firewall Does anyone know what: - this error message means - where I should look for the cause - what could cause them to be in the log at such regular intervals? TIA Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: [Samba]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boa Tarde.. Realmente, após pesquisas a respeito, concluo a thread com o seguinte link... la explica tudo certinho o que precisa para resolver primeiramente pode ser aplicado a regra de iptables *Code:* iptables -I INPUT 1 -p tcp --dport 445 -j DROP e alterar um parametro no smb.conf *Code:* smb ports = 139 Confesso que ainda nao testei .. até pq tenho q preparar um ambiente de teste aqui, pois nao vou aplicar um teste num ambiente em produção, e que soh vou preparar na segunda feira... .. e assim confirmo esta solução... Para alguém que queira se habilitar a testar, fica aberto a contribuições ... :p de qualquer maneira Obrigado a todos Atenciosamente Marlos Sedrez http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-304678-highlight-.html joel escreveu: opa! Apenas no caso de integraçao com o ambiente AD 2003R2 que nao aceita fall-back para 139. Para todo resto a porta 445 pode ser bloqueada. Abraço. t+. Em Qua, 2006-07-05 às 18:22 -0300, Marcos Vinicius Lazarini escreveu: Marlos Sedrez schrieb: - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boa Tarde Lista! mais uma encrenca.. heheheh Seguinte tenho um servidor e esta ocorrendo o seguinte erro no messages: Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28,0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket: Error writing 4 bytes to socket 5: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647) Jul 5 16:19:28 srvsmbd[17067]: Error writing 4 bytes to client. - -1. (Connection reset by peer) Procurei pelo google e achei algumas coisa .. mas acho q talvez até resolva mas não confio, acho que não que não por ai que pode ser o problema.. http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-April/084048.html aqui tb tem referencia a esta lista http://lists.zerezo.com/samba/msg01574.html e até onde eu sei a porta 445 tem que esta liberada ! espero que alguem possa me dar alguma dica.. - -- Marlos Sedrez Atendimento Linux/Redes - Senior TI Linux User # 400480 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefone: 3221-3332 R.:408 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFErq2tqefuF2nUUeERAvMBAJ4y2sgR5UZ9A+SplGA0uWx+H7IqSwCgv4mR 1fkvf2A2aIxlUf0QfXtKsMU= =TfzN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Samba]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi All!! Seguinte.. com um pouco mais de pesquisar para saber o que o windows faz nestas portas cheguei a seguinte conclusão Network Ports Used by Shadow Copies for Shared Folders Shadow Copies for Shared Folders uses the following network ports. *Network Ports Used by Shadow Copies for Shared Folders* Service Name Description Port Used Server Message Block (SMB) Required for Shadow Copies for Shared Folders TCP 138, 139, 445 DCOM/Remote Procedure Call (RPC) Required for remote management using WMI. TCP 135, dynamic FONTE: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/Library/78203fa0-7d7d-45d2-a8be-89fa5fd18db31033.mspx?mfr=true ele é requerido para fazer a copias de sombra das pastas compartilhadas .. para um ambiente win X win bloquear a porta 445 pode ter problemas como descrito abaixo nos FAQ da pagina da microsoft I cannot access shared folders or printers on a computer that has Windows Firewall enabled. This happens when Windows Firewall blocks incoming traffic through UDP ports 137 and 138 and TCP ports 139 and 445. To allow access to shared folders and printers, you must enable the predefined exception for file and printer sharing, which will dynamically allow incoming traffic on UDP ports 137 and 138 and TCP ports 139 and 445. FOTE: http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/Library/dce3dc46-2581-472b-9f75-54149063c8811033.mspx?mfr=true ainda nao testei para Samba X win mas vou fazer um ambiente de teste aqui e verifica se vai dar problema ou nao.. e tentar reproduzir o erro.. Atenciosamente - -- Marlos Sedrez Atendimento Linux/Redes - Senior TI Linux User # 400480 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefone: 3221-3332 R.:408 joel escreveu: opa! Apenas no caso de integraçao com o ambiente AD 2003R2 que nao aceita fall-back para 139. Para todo resto a porta 445 pode ser bloqueada. Abraço. t+. Em Qua, 2006-07-05 às 18:22 -0300, Marcos Vinicius Lazarini escreveu: Marlos Sedrez schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boa Tarde Lista! mais uma encrenca.. heheheh Seguinte tenho um servidor e esta ocorrendo o seguinte erro no messages: Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket: Error writing 4 bytes to socket 5: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: Error writing 4 bytes to client. - -1. (Connection reset by peer) Procurei pelo google e achei algumas coisa .. mas acho q talvez até resolva mas não confio, acho que não que não por ai que pode ser o problema.. http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-April/084048.html aqui tb tem referencia a esta lista http://lists.zerezo.com/samba/msg01574.html e até onde eu sei a porta 445 tem que esta liberada ! espero que alguem possa me dar alguma dica.. Bom, olhei no log e achei exatamente as mesmas coisas... e aqui tudo funciona normal. Nao vi ainda motivos p/ se preocupar... Outra coisa: se nao me engano, até as versões mais antigas do win, tudo era via porta 139... do 2000 p/ cima passaram a usar a 445, mas com possibilidade de 'fall-back' p/ 139 qdo nao funcionasse a 445 (pro cado de um win2000 falar com o win98). Então, nao sei se teria realmente problema em bloquear a 445... De qualquer maneira, não acho que seja um problema sério ter essas msgs no log... -- Marcos -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFErVM0qefuF2nUUeERAteFAJ9dGMi/GPp9/xopjrABs92fP3v5oQCggmXN x7E5Lr/ZBZuWhOiz4ajj0Co= =YKxi -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Samba]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boa Tarde Lista! mais uma encrenca.. heheheh Seguinte tenho um servidor e esta ocorrendo o seguinte erro no messages: Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket: Error writing 4 bytes to socket 5: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: Error writing 4 bytes to client. - -1. (Connection reset by peer) Procurei pelo google e achei algumas coisa .. mas acho q talvez até resolva mas não confio, acho que não que não por ai que pode ser o problema.. http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-April/084048.html aqui tb tem referencia a esta lista http://lists.zerezo.com/samba/msg01574.html e até onde eu sei a porta 445 tem que esta liberada ! aqui esta meu smb.conf [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# testparm /etc/samba/smb.conf Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf Processing section [netlogon] Processing section [Senior] Processing section [Sistema] Processing section [Usuarios] Loaded services file OK. Server role: ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions # Global parameters [global] workgroup = DOMINIO server string = Servidor interfaces = 192.168.0.3/24, 127.0.0.1/8 bind interfaces only = Yes log level = 1 log file = /var/log/samba/%m time server = Yes add machine script = /usr/sbin/adduser -n -g estacoes -c Estacoes -d /dev/null -s /bin/false %u logon script = netlogon.bat logon path = \\orasrv\Usuarios\%U\profile logon home = domain logons = Yes os level = 100 preferred master = Yes domain master = Yes wins support = Yes comment = Servidor de Dominio Samba [netlogon] path = /var/samba/Netlogon read only = No create mask = 0600 directory mask = 0700 [SistemaSE] comment = Sistemas path = /var/samba/SistemasSE read only = No create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 [Sistema] comment = Diretorio Sistema path = /var/samba/Sistema read only = No create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 [Usuarios] path = /var/samba/Usuarios read only = No create mask = 0600 directory mask = 0700 espero que alguem possa me dar alguma dica.. valew - -- Marlos Sedrez Atendimento Linux/Redes - Senior TI Linux User # 400480 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telefone: 3221-3332 R.:408 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFErBR/qefuF2nUUeERArVDAKDKgO06RwHhj0mf5AW+vE+l4ocBswCdH2nE wrnILZDTUTdA+ZXoelQ/u7s= =LYDV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Samba]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
Marlos Sedrez schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boa Tarde Lista! mais uma encrenca.. heheheh Seguinte tenho um servidor e esta ocorrendo o seguinte erro no messages: Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket: Error writing 4 bytes to socket 5: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: Error writing 4 bytes to client. - -1. (Connection reset by peer) Procurei pelo google e achei algumas coisa .. mas acho q talvez até resolva mas não confio, acho que não que não por ai que pode ser o problema.. http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-April/084048.html aqui tb tem referencia a esta lista http://lists.zerezo.com/samba/msg01574.html e até onde eu sei a porta 445 tem que esta liberada ! aqui esta meu smb.conf [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# testparm /etc/samba/smb.conf Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf Processing section [netlogon] Processing section [Senior] Processing section [Sistema] Processing section [Usuarios] Loaded services file OK. Server role: ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions # Global parameters [global] workgroup = DOMINIO server string = Servidor interfaces = 192.168.0.3/24, 127.0.0.1/8 bind interfaces only = Yes log level = 1 log file = /var/log/samba/%m time server = Yes add machine script = /usr/sbin/adduser -n -g estacoes -c Estacoes -d /dev/null -s /bin/false %u logon script = netlogon.bat logon path = \\orasrv\Usuarios\%U\profile logon home = domain logons = Yes os level = 100 preferred master = Yes domain master = Yes wins support = Yes comment = Servidor de Dominio Samba [netlogon] path = /var/samba/Netlogon read only = No create mask = 0600 directory mask = 0700 [SistemaSE] comment = Sistemas path = /var/samba/SistemasSE read only = No create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 [Sistema] comment = Diretorio Sistema path = /var/samba/Sistema read only = No create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 [Usuarios] path = /var/samba/Usuarios read only = No create mask = 0600 directory mask = 0700 espero que alguem possa me dar alguma dica.. Bom, olhei no log e achei exatamente as mesmas coisas... e aqui tudo funciona normal. Nao vi ainda motivos p/ se preocupar... Outra coisa: se nao me engano, até as versões mais antigas do win, tudo era via porta 139... do 2000 p/ cima passaram a usar a 445, mas com possibilidade de 'fall-back' p/ 139 qdo nao funcionasse a 445 (pro cado de um win2000 falar com o win98). Então, nao sei se teria realmente problema em bloquear a 445... De qualquer maneira, não acho que seja um problema sério ter essas msgs no log... -- Marcos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Samba]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
opa! Apenas no caso de integraçao com o ambiente AD 2003R2 que nao aceita fall-back para 139. Para todo resto a porta 445 pode ser bloqueada. Abraço. t+. Em Qua, 2006-07-05 às 18:22 -0300, Marcos Vinicius Lazarini escreveu: Marlos Sedrez schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boa Tarde Lista! mais uma encrenca.. heheheh Seguinte tenho um servidor e esta ocorrendo o seguinte erro no messages: Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1000) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: write_socket: Error writing 4 bytes to socket 5: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: [2006/07/05 16:19:28, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647) Jul 5 16:19:28 srv smbd[17067]: Error writing 4 bytes to client. - -1. (Connection reset by peer) Procurei pelo google e achei algumas coisa .. mas acho q talvez até resolva mas não confio, acho que não que não por ai que pode ser o problema.. http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-April/084048.html aqui tb tem referencia a esta lista http://lists.zerezo.com/samba/msg01574.html e até onde eu sei a porta 445 tem que esta liberada ! aqui esta meu smb.conf [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# testparm /etc/samba/smb.conf Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf Processing section [netlogon] Processing section [Senior] Processing section [Sistema] Processing section [Usuarios] Loaded services file OK. Server role: ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions # Global parameters [global] workgroup = DOMINIO server string = Servidor interfaces = 192.168.0.3/24, 127.0.0.1/8 bind interfaces only = Yes log level = 1 log file = /var/log/samba/%m time server = Yes add machine script = /usr/sbin/adduser -n -g estacoes -c Estacoes -d /dev/null -s /bin/false %u logon script = netlogon.bat logon path = \\orasrv\Usuarios\%U\profile logon home = domain logons = Yes os level = 100 preferred master = Yes domain master = Yes wins support = Yes comment = Servidor de Dominio Samba [netlogon] path = /var/samba/Netlogon read only = No create mask = 0600 directory mask = 0700 [SistemaSE] comment = Sistemas path = /var/samba/SistemasSE read only = No create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 [Sistema] comment = Diretorio Sistema path = /var/samba/Sistema read only = No create mask = 0660 directory mask = 0770 [Usuarios] path = /var/samba/Usuarios read only = No create mask = 0600 directory mask = 0700 espero que alguem possa me dar alguma dica.. Bom, olhei no log e achei exatamente as mesmas coisas... e aqui tudo funciona normal. Nao vi ainda motivos p/ se preocupar... Outra coisa: se nao me engano, até as versões mais antigas do win, tudo era via porta 139... do 2000 p/ cima passaram a usar a 445, mas com possibilidade de 'fall-back' p/ 139 qdo nao funcionasse a 445 (pro cado de um win2000 falar com o win98). Então, nao sei se teria realmente problema em bloquear a 445... De qualquer maneira, não acho que seja um problema sério ter essas msgs no log... -- Marcos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smbd: getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
Guten Tag, wie der Betreff schon zeigt handelt sich hier (mal wieder?) um das Problem mit dem smbd. Bei Google findet man etliche Links zu diesem Problem und auch mindestens genauso viele Lösungsansätze bzw. Begründungen. Ich habe noch nicht genau herausfinden können, wann dieser Fehler erscheint, aber in den meisten Fällen, wenn ein M$ Client gebooted wird und sich mit den Shares verbindet. Die Verbindung kommt soweit zu Stande, aber den Grund für die Fehler-Meldungen würde ich gerne eliminieren. Abgesehen davon habe ich in letzter Zeit des öfteren Verbindungsprobleme mit Samba. Sprich, die Verbindung ist auf einmal beendet und kurze Zeit später wieder verfügbar. Somit bin ich jetzt auf systematischer Fehlersuche und fange mit diesem Problem an. Hier ein Auszug aus meiner syslog (ich habe Datum, Hostname und Daemon entfernt der Lesbarkeit halber): [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1150) getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1150) getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/access.c:check_access(328) [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1150) getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Denied connection from (0.0.0.0) [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1150) getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Connection denied from 0.0.0.0 [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket_data(430) write_socket_data: write failure. Error = Connection reset by peer [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(455) write_socket: Error writing 5 bytes to socket 5: ERRNO = Connection reset by peer [2005/11/14 12:08:09, 0] lib/util_sock.c:send_smb(647) Error writing 5 bytes to client. -1. (Connection reset by peer) Was ist das? Ich verstehe leider nicht wirklich, was mir diese Meldungen sagen möchte. Vielen Dank für eure Hilfe, Claus Malter -- Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ): http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/ Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] mit dem Subject unsubscribe. Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)
