Well.. I understand from the docs, that #1b is reserved for PDC (acting as browse master.. cannot be split up), but if I say "domain logons".. smbd gives me "Server's Role (logon server) conflicts with share-level security".
The shares still work (for now), but I'm getting this error in log.smbd: [2003/01/28 10:58:35, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_socket_addr(878) getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected Btw: I'm using wrepld.. Works great! But I'd like to have a way to force a replication... (I could just restatr the wrepld, but sending it a signal would be a more fancy way of doing it) Thank you -Zobo "Simo Sorce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 1043738942.1996.2.camel@localhost">news:1043738942.1996.2.camel@localhost... > I still think we _need_ to introduce a "server role" paramter, leaving > the other active for tuning, but so that new admins will not get mad to > have a decent configuration. > > server role = share|server|member|PDC|BDC|ADS > > or something like that. > > Simo. > > On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 23:20, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:08:52PM -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Damjan "Zobo" Cvetko wrote: > > > > > > I dont know if this is the rigth list for this.. > > > > I'm using the latest samba 3.x. from CVS.. (because of the wins replication) > > > > I have it set up as master browser, but it wont register itself (to the WINS > > > > server running in the same nmbd) as DMB (WROKGROUP#1b..) > > > > > Why not just set > > > > > domain master = yes > > > domain logons = yes > > > > > ? > > > > > By not setting domain logons, you've created a box that Windows clients > > > will believe to be a PDC but one that will not be listed in the DOMAIN#1c > > > list of addresses. > > > > > > /* Do the domain master names. */ > > > > - if(lp_server_role() == ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC) > > > > + if (lp_domain_master() == True) > > > > { > > > > > I don't think i will commit this patch unless you can further convince me. > > > > It's a change from Samba's previous behavior. > > > > If there's ever anything else on the network that needs the #1b name, it > > will be broken by Samba registering the #1b name. Period. It doesn't > > matter whether the option to enable this is called 'domain master = yes' > > or 'domain logons = yes'; if the user enables the corresponding setting > > in a domain with a preexisting PDC, it will break one way or the other. > > So changing the meaning of the option doesn't really protect against > > this, but it does break configurations that previously worked for people > > who need DMBs but don't need logon servers. > > > > Much better, IMHO, would be to leave the code as it was in 2.2, but > > make sure 3.0's *documentation* strongly encourages using 'domain logons' > > instead of 'domain master'. Granted, in all the cases I've seen, > > enabling 'domain logons' in addition to 'domain master' hasn't done any > > harm; but is it really worth gratuitiously breaking users' 2.2 configs to > > get this point across? > > > > FWIW, this is the third time I've seen this issue come up with the 3.0 > > alphas. > -- > Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Samba Team - http://www.samba.org > Italian Site - http://samba.xsec.it >