On Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 03:53:30AM -0500, gippah wrote:
| On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, you wrote:
|
| >Samba will allow me to share my printer between my linux and NT machines?
| >Also, it will allow NT to access my ext2 filesystem and linux to
| >access ntfs? Is it difficult to setup?
|
| Like most things by Microsoft, SMB is kind of strange to get up and
| running. Yes you can share printers and filesystems, but it's very
| slow. It seemed faster to me to ftp files on the network via tcp/ip
| rather than use SMB.
Of course it's faster. There's no file system overhead. In it's
defense, I'm told that SMB (and samba) are faster than NFS.
| The linux SAMBA-Howto did help a :little: bit as
| far as setting things up, but the howto seems rather quickly done and
| doesn't cover much, particularly regarding troubleshooting, and it only
| lists 1 example setup file. There are hundreds of variables to tweak in
| SAMBA but the howto only covers about 10 of those options.
But you typically only need to use 10 of those options to make samba
work. The rest of the options are described in plenty of detail in
the samba documentation - if the HOWTON listed all of them, it would
become huge, and would cease being a HOWTO and would become
`everything you ever wanted to know about SAMBA but didn't know who to
ask.'
If you don't like the HOWTO, fix it and send your changes back to the
author.
More than one example would be nice, however. I'll give you my setup
at the end of this email ... maybe it'll help.
| So
| basically you'll most likely have to take the time to read up on it
| yourself if you want it to work right.
I didn't have much trouble, at least not with samba itself.
| My main problem was with printing. I had trouble getting linux to allow
| the windows machine to print -- SAMBA literally seemed to ignore the
| print request because it did log it as being received., but never
| actually printed anything nor did it put it into the queue.
Printing can be tricky, even without samba involved. If one of your
filters fails, the print job can be silently lost, and you won't even
see the error unless you turn on error logging. The more filters
you're dealing with, the more likely it is that you'll see this.
The problem may have nothing to do with samba.
| However, I
| can print just fine if the printer is instead on the windows box --
| that's ok really because windows makes much nicer print quality than
| linux for my particular printer anyway (HP Deskjet 672c).
That's because Windows knows how to talk the HP's language. Most Unix
programs that talk to printers talk in postscript. To print
postscript on your printer, one must use ghostscript to convert it to
a bitmap in the printer's language, and then dump that to the printer.
(That's also why it's so slow.)
The print quality isn't related to which computer the printer is on,
but instead depends on what's generating the output that the printer
gets. If you set it up correctly, you can put the printer on the unix
box and have Windows print to it via samba and get the same quality
you're getting now.
As promised, here's another example for you ...
--- cut here ---
[global]
printing = bsd
printcap name = /etc/printcap
load printers = yes
guest account = nobody
hosts allow = 198.214.63., localhost
#socket options = TCP_NODELAY
log level = 2
log file = /var/log/samba-log.%m
max log size = 256
workgroup = FRENZY
public = yes
[printers]
comment = All Printers
#postscript = True
browseable = yes
printable = yes
public = yes
writable = no
create mode = 0700
path = /var/spool/samba
print command = cat %s | lpr -r -P %p ; rm %s
[x]
writable = yes
browseable = yes
guest ok = no
read only = no
create mask = 0755
public = no
path = /x
[y]
writable = yes
browseable = yes
guest ok = no
read only = no
create mask = 0755
public = no
path = /y
...
--- cut here ---
--
Doug McLaren, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
