On 6/24/2011 5:31 PM, John Drescher wrote:
>>I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed
>> over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most
>> testing there. Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd
>> strongly recommend it. If
Linda W wrote:
No, it was originally developed over SunOS ufs. I did the
xfs work when I was @ SGI doing the 64-bit Samba port, so
it's one of the older supported filesystems though.
Jeremy.
Sorry, I've been suitably disillusioned
FWIW, I was at Sun for 6 years befor
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:16:00PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote:
I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba
likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb
partition sometime today and I'll prob
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:16:00PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> >>On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote:
> >>>I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba
> >>>likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb
> >>>partition sometime today and I'll probably
John Drescher wrote:
� � � �I would use 'xfs'. �I believe samba was originally developed
over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most
testing there. �Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd
strongly recommend it. � If not, ext4 might be safer (with
> I would use 'xfs'. I believe samba was originally developed
> over xfs, so it's likely the ea-suppot and acl support has had the most
> testing there. Especially if your file server is setup with a UPS, then I'd
> strongly recommend it. If not, ext4 might be safer (with write
> through
On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote:
I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba
likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb
partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba
prefers something else.
I would use 'xfs'
Please note that the Samba 3.5.9 release notes have been extended after
the release. The following paragraph on the changed Kerberos behaviour
has been added for clarification:
-8<--snip--8<--
New Kerberos behaviour
--
A new paramete
On 06/24/2011 2:56 AM, Dermot wrote:
On 24 June 2011 05:48, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Dermot (paik...@googlemail.com):
Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly because that runs counter
my experience. The settings in my /etc/ldap/ldap.conf were correct
whereas the ones in /etc/libn
I vote for ext4 also, we have been running on that for a few years with
no issues..
On 06/24/2011 10:22 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote:
I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba
likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1
Dears,
Unfortunately it happened again.
Now i see the user has the flags UX, but the system keeps asking for a
password change in loop.
details about pdbedit -L -v
---
Unix username:myuser
NT username: myuser
Account Flags:[UX ]
User SID:
I have a samba member server setup for AD domain X.Y.net, this domain only
holds computer objects. Domain Y.net contains all of the user accounts.
Domain X.Y.net trusts domain Y.net one way only.
The server is working and if I connect as a domain X.Y.net user I can connect
ok. If I try as a
On 24/06/11 09:46 AM, John G. Heim wrote:
I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba
likes one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb
partition sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba
prefers something else.
We have a lot more linux us
I'm setting up a new linux fileserver and I was wondering if samba likes
one filesystem more than another. I have to format a 1.8Tb partition
sometime today and I'll probably do ext3 unless samba prefers something
else.
We have a lot more linux users than Windows users but the Windows user
The user's unix LDAP password should be encrypted (technically I think
it is actually hashed, since it is not reversible)- so no, you can't
get their existing password.
There are two options in smb.conf to have the password sync
ldap passwd sync = yes
or
unix password sync = ye
Actually, I've performed a network trace, but I was looking for something
different. I'm no expert in the SMB protocol, so I appreciate your comments.
I'll look for these calls and see what I come up with.
Rich
-Original Message-
From: Volker Lendecke [mailto:volker.lende...@sernet.de
On 24 June 2011 10:38, Thorsten Leiser wrote:
10:08, schrieb Dermot:
On 24 June 2011 07:13, Thorsten Leiser
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> [2011/06/24 07:47:56, 0] lib/debug.c:reopen_logs(663)
> Unable to open new log file /var/log/samba/log.smbd: Permission denied
> [2011
Hi,
all the users here are stored in a LDAP-Server, means authentication on a
workstation (linux) is over LDAP. Yesterday I configured a Samba-Server, it
also uses the LDAP-Server as its backend.
I found out, that with a call "smbpasswd -a user" an existing user gets all the
attributes from the
Hi, Voller.
The way to do this is to run smbtorture against Windows
latest server edition to make sure that smbtorture succeeds.
Then adapt the Samba server side to the behaviour smbtorture
expects.
Now, as a modification sample, it is corresponding by the method
which got advice.
Again, I w
Am 24.06.2011 11:05, schrieb Dermot:
On 24 June 2011 09:48, Thorsten Leiser wrote:
Hi Dermot,
here are the file permissions on /var/log/samba/log.smbd,
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 434340 24. Jun 10:41 log.smbd
(all files in this directory have this permission)
the parent directory ( /var/log/sa
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 06:23:11PM +0900, Kenji Ichinoseki wrote:
> >Again, I would highly recommend using a much later version
> >of Samba than 3.0.37. Many, many fixes have been made, in
> >particular for compatibility to more modern Windows
> >releases.
>
> Since it is necessary to use surely o
On 24 June 2011 09:48, Thorsten Leiser wrote:
> Hi Dermot,
>
> here are the file permissions on /var/log/samba/log.smbd,
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 434340 24. Jun 10:41 log.smbd
> (all files in this directory have this permission)
>
> the parent directory ( /var/log/samba )
> drwxr-x--- 3 root
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 05:39:43PM +0900, Kenji Ichinoseki wrote:
> Thank you for the response.
>
> I would like to investigate and correct various source codes.
The way to do this is to run smbtorture against Windows
latest server edition to make sure that smbtorture succeeds.
Then adapt the Sam
Hi Dermot,
here are the file permissions on /var/log/samba/log.smbd,
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 434340 24. Jun 10:41 log.smbd
(all files in this directory have this permission)
the parent directory ( /var/log/samba )
drwxr-x--- 3 rootadm 4096 24. Jun 08:07 samba
the smbd is running as
Hi Volker.
Thank you for the response.
I would like to investigate and correct various source codes.
Thanks and best regards,
Kenji.
--
Kenji Ichinoseki (ichinos...@sei-networks.com)
At 11/06/24 16:48, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:17:29A
On 24 June 2011 07:13, Thorsten Leiser wrote:
> Hi,
> [2011/06/24 07:47:56, 0] lib/debug.c:reopen_logs(663)
> Unable to open new log file /var/log/samba/log.smbd: Permission denied
> [2011/06/24 07:47:56, 0] lib/debug.c:reopen_logs(663)
> Unable to open new log file /var/log/samba/log.smbd: P
On 24 June 2011 05:48, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Dermot (paik...@googlemail.com):
>
>> Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly because that runs counter
>> my experience. The settings in my /etc/ldap/ldap.conf were correct
>> whereas the ones in /etc/libnss-ldap.conf were not. It was
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:17:29AM +0900, Kenji Ichinoseki wrote:
> My name is Kenji Ichinoseki and I am in charge of
> a project at Sumitomo Electric Networks, Inc.
>
> Please give me cooperation by all means about the affair
> in the account of a title. Now, I included "Samba 3.0.37"
> in the
Quoting Dermot (paik...@googlemail.com):
> Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly because that runs counter
> my experience. The settings in my /etc/ldap/ldap.conf were correct
> whereas the ones in /etc/libnss-ldap.conf were not. It was the search
> filters from libnss-ldap.conf that were b
29 matches
Mail list logo
