Mike Gerdts wrote: > On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 02:03, Bogdan Iamandei wrote: > > >>1). I don't seem to be able to specify multiple ranges of ID's for >>winbindd. For example: >> >> winbind uid = 1000-20000 25000-30000 >> >>Would this be possible in the future? :) Please? :) >> >>2). For some reason winbindd is reading the winbindd_cache.tdb and >>winbindd_idmap.tdb after a restart. All would be fine, but if I change >>the UID ranges, winbindd will still use the old range. The workaround >>is to remove those two TDBs and try again. > > > Are you proposing that if winbindd finds a UID in the cache that does > not fit in the range that a new UID from the range should be assigned? > That wouldn't be too hard to implement, but I am not sure that it is > desirable. The side effect would be that all the files and ACLs that > were created would maintain the old uids. When the user gets a new uid, > files that they previously created or ACLs that they were added to would > not be accessible with the new uid.
Damn - I haven't thought of this. You're right. > > >>3). (not really a nitpick - more like a small warning) Beware of nscd >>daemon on Solaris. It basically takes a little while until it kicks in >>for the first time. > > > A while back I reported a bug in winbindd that caused it to crash nscd. > While debugging this problem, I found that winbindd was horribly slow > without the caching done by nscd. After fixing the problem so that nscd > would stay alive, name lookups became MUCH faster because repeat lookups > were being answered by nscd rather than by winbindd. > > I suspect that this slowness is because winbindd talking to PDC across > the WAN rather than the local PDC. I never really looked into it. > Since I didn't see other people complaining about slowness, I assumed > that it was something wierd with our domain configuration. Hmm... not really - since same authentication - going over the WAN to the Kerberos5 swerver goes faster. But then again - the usernames are all in the local passwd file, so lookup is necessary. >>4). After a while (5-10 minutes) running samba, attempting to connect >>a share - takes a long - long time and in the end it fails with >>something like Error - 0. I'll have to test it some more - before giving >>some more details though. > > > I have seen that one too, but forget the exact circumstances. Ahaa! so it's not only my perception. That's good to know. Ino!~ -- I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.