Re: [Samba] AS/400 - Unix Connectivity
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:59:11AM -0700, Gill, Ian T wrote: Hi Folks, I've used Samba in the past for Windows NT - Unix connectivity situations. I wondered if Samba also supported AS/400 - Unix connectivity, specifically to allow AS/400 to read/write to a Unix file system...?? I suspect you are better off trying something native to either Unix or OS/400. Does OS/400 have NFS support? I suspect there'd be one somewhere. Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Samba and MC/Service Guard
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 01:29:50PM -0600, Dan Doffermyre wrote: Samba friends, I work in Wal-Mart's IT department, specifically with Unix Servers of various flavors, but HP-UX is predominant in our Home Office environment. I recently built an two node HA cluster on HP 11.11 boxes. I want to be able to have Samba use the virtual name of my cluster. Currently Samba is configured to use the hardcoded box name, however if the box happens to go down, we have to go in and reconfigure the clients to point to the secondary box name. Sure would be nice to point everything to the virtual name. So I was wondering if you have any documents that explain how you would go about setting up Samba with HP's MC/Service Guard? I've configured Samba to work with MC/SG. I didn't use HP's configuration. I installed Samba on both nodes, and used the smb.conf 'include' feature to include a bit of configuration file from a file in the cluster package, to refer to the share in the cluster package. On the node that the cluster package is not running, samba cannot find the 'included' file of course, but that doesn't bother Samba. You then get the clients to connect to the virtual (cluster) ip/name. This will work if you have Samba listening on all addresses, as is the default. Works fine, and you don't need to stop/start Samba when a package switches, so you don't bother all the other packages which may be using Samba at the same time. If you want more info, I'd be happy to oblige. Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Usernames with dots
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes chown -R GENEEDINC+chris.palmer: chris.palmer/ FWIW, you should always use the -h option (don't follow symlinks) when chown'ing, especially recursive chowns. Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] WinXP duplicate computer name problem
On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 01:04:16PM -0500, Joel Hammer wrote: I assume you mean that the problem pc could join the domain if the other xp machine was off line. The short answer to your question is, I don't know. I don't use domains on my simple home network setup. I just use workgroups. So, I have no idea what name is being duplicated. Joel Were the PCs cloned or ghosted somehow? Maybe you've got the same machine SID on both. Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] system error 64, win xp and samba
Just so that it gets into the archives for future googlers: If you get 'system error 64' on a windows xp machine trying to connect to samba, then make sure you have nothing running on port 445. I had an apache ssl instance running on that port. Doh! Had to scratch my head a bit over it. XP doesn't actually need anything to be on 445, it just gets confused and gives up if there is. Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] system error 64, win xp and samba
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 04:59:42PM +, John H Terpstra wrote: On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, mlh wrote: Just so that it gets into the archives for future googlers: If you get 'system error 64' on a windows xp machine trying to connect to samba, then make sure you have nothing running on port 445. I had an apache ssl instance running on that port. Really? The well known port for that is 443. Yeah, I know. I have a whole bunch of apache servers, of potentially different versions, hence different ports. (rather than use virtual servers) The first uses 80+443, the second 81+444, the third ... well you can guess :-) Doh! Had to scratch my head a bit over it. XP doesn't actually need anything to be on 445, it just gets confused and gives up if there is. Port 445 is the port Win2K and WinXP use for netbiosless SMB. It is the correct well known TCP port that Microsoft have registered for the purpose. Does any present or future Samba plan to use it too? (I presume the answer is yes for future, but I think no for the present.?) Matt PS. I may go to virtual ips for my multiple apaches but that's enough on apache for this list. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: strange locks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote The locks you see here are used by MS Office as semaphores. No one really knows why (well the MS Office programmers do, but they're not telling :-). Thank s! That explains that. But I expected to see locks for the whole of the file for the duration of the MS-Word session. Why don't I see that?Without that, I don't see how Samba locks could play nicely with other Unix processes. Actually, being a Samba techo newbie, I sort of expected that those sort of locks would be dealt with internally to Samba, and smbd would lock the whole file anyway. Anyway to get that behaviour? (Thinks: probably not as Samba doesn't know why the file is being locked -- could be a word doco, could be a database I s'pose) -Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: strange locks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote The locks you see here are used by MS Office as semaphores. No one really knows why (well the MS Office programmers do, but they're not telling :-). Thank s! That explains that. But I expected to see locks for the whole of the file for the duration of the MS-Word session. Why don't I see that?Without that, I don't see how Samba locks could play nicely with other Unix processes. Actually, being a Samba techo newbie, I sort of expected that those sort of locks would be dealt with internally to Samba, and smbd would lock the whole file anyway. Anyway to get that behaviour? (Thinks: probably not as Samba doesn't know why the file is being locked -- could be a word doco, could be a database I s'pose) -Matt
Re: [Samba] Samba Performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any ideas where i can get a things to check list for performace tuning of Samba Currently copying 300mb of data since 09:00am this morning and still going ...now 12:20! 100mb full duplex nic on a IBM x232 series dual proc Piii-1.2ghz, 512mb ram, raid 5 - 18.2gb drives Have you read the Speed.txt and Speed2.txt files that come with Samba? Also, double check that the nic is in fact running full duplex. It's best just to force both sides to full duplex since auto-negotiation is so unreliable. Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: How Samba let us down
David Collier-Brown -- Customer Engineering wrote: There are also some sharable filesystems that could result in two sambae sharing the same files: supposedy my employer sells one (:-)) :-) Yes, I considered NFS, but only as as way to allow the two Sambae to be on separate machines and so not have to fight over the right to listen on the localhost interface. I think that adding another layer of locking would add to my locking problems, not lessen them. Matt -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: How Samba let us down
David Collier-Brown -- Customer Engineering wrote: There are also some sharable filesystems that could result in two sambae sharing the same files: supposedy my employer sells one (:-)) :-) Yes, I considered NFS, but only as as way to allow the two Sambae to be on separate machines and so not have to fight over the right to listen on the localhost interface. I think that adding another layer of locking would add to my locking problems, not lessen them. Matt
[Samba] two sambas on one machine?
Hi, I want to run two Samba servers on a single machine during a transition from NT domain to W2k AD server setup. And samba 2.0.7 to 2.2.5. And NT wkstation to XP. To do this I'd like to run the two versions of Samba simultaneously on the one machine. I figure this would be easy enough if I have them bind to different listing addresses. However, since the two servers will sharing the same shares, will there be a problem with locking? Or will it be ok, since they both just use the underlying Unix locks? Has anyone done this? Regards, Matt PS. Another possibility that occurred to me is the have the second server on a second machine NFS mounting the first. But I think this would be even hairier. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
