Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
Quoting Jonathan Nieder (jrnie...@gmail.com): I believe this is at least a documentation bug, as evidenced by the countless worried questions you can find online. IMHO the warning should just be suppressed (or the default fd limit increased if it is actually something the user needs to worry about). Maybe...but that should rather be discussed directly with upstream, imho. Not sure I'll have the motivation to play proxy, here..:) -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
tags 608624 + upstream
quit
Christian PERRIER wrote:
Maybe...but that should rather be discussed directly with upstream,
imho. Not sure I'll have the motivation to play proxy, here..:)
I wrote the following to sa...@lists.samba.org as a reply to
20100125175026.gc23...@samba1. Copying here because I am not sure
if it was delivered correctly to that members-only list. I haven't
tried filing an upstream bug yet because as you noted it is not cut
and dried what the best fix is.
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:44:03AM +, Miguel Medalha wrote:
rlimit_max: rlimit_max (8192) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
I searched Google for some answer but I couldn't find a satisfactory
one. What should I do to solve this?
[...]
It's a warning, you can safely ignore it. Windows 7 clients need to
have exactly the same number of open handles available as Windows
servers, else it fails in some file copy situations with a out of
handles message. Samba has taken care of it for you, but it's just
letting you know your fd limit is set a bit low.
Uninformed reaction: is it useful to let the user know? Does setting
the fd limit higher result in better behavior, or does the automatic
increase have results that would be counterintuitive if not mentioned?
If the former, maybe the default rlimit_max should be increased
(on Debian squeeze it seems to be 1024 fwiw). If the latter, I think
the message should say
rlimit_max: rlimit_max (8192) increased to minimum Windows limit (16384)
to be more informative and sound less like a warning. Like this,
maybe (untested).
-- 8 --
Subject: s3-param: Make rlimit_max below minimum Windows limit notification
less scary
The fix to bug #6837 results in messages from testparm that look
like a misconfiguration even though they aren't:
rlimit_max: rlimit_max (8192) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
Apply a slight change in wording (increasing rlimit_max to minimum
Windows limit) to make it clearer that the user has done nothing
wrong. (Similarly for sysctl_max.)
Reported-by: Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.pt
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com
---
source3/param/loadparm.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/source3/param/loadparm.c b/source3/param/loadparm.c
index 2f68f00..bda20d8 100644
--- a/source3/param/loadparm.c
+++ b/source3/param/loadparm.c
@@ -4898,7 +4898,7 @@ static int max_open_files(void)
#endif
if (sysctl_max MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS) {
- DEBUG(2,(max_open_files: sysctl_max (%d) below
+ DEBUG(2,(max_open_files: increasing sysctl_max (%d) to
minimum Windows limit (%d)\n,
sysctl_max,
MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS));
@@ -4906,7 +4906,7 @@ static int max_open_files(void)
}
if (rlimit_max MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS) {
- DEBUG(2,(rlimit_max: rlimit_max (%d) below
+ DEBUG(2,(rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (%d) to
minimum Windows limit (%d)\n,
rlimit_max,
MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS));
--
1.7.4.rc0
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 02:40:09AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
diff --git a/source3/param/loadparm.c b/source3/param/loadparm.c
index 2f68f00..bda20d8 100644
--- a/source3/param/loadparm.c
+++ b/source3/param/loadparm.c
@@ -4898,7 +4898,7 @@ static int max_open_files(void)
#endif
if (sysctl_max MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS) {
- DEBUG(2,(max_open_files: sysctl_max (%d) below
+ DEBUG(2,(max_open_files: increasing sysctl_max (%d) to
minimum Windows limit (%d)\n,
sysctl_max,
MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS));
@@ -4906,7 +4906,7 @@ static int max_open_files(void)
}
if (rlimit_max MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS) {
- DEBUG(2,(rlimit_max: rlimit_max (%d) below
+ DEBUG(2,(rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (%d) to
minimum Windows limit (%d)\n,
rlimit_max,
MIN_OPEN_FILES_WINDOWS));
--
1.7.4.rc0
At minimum, the debug message should be cleaned up to state *what* rlimit is
too low; the current message mentions nothing about file descriptors.
Otherwise, I'm not overly concerned about this. Nowadays, the default log
level is '0', isn't it? So only users who have manually adjusted the
smb.conf 'log level' setting would be seeing this warning.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
Steve Langasek wrote: At minimum, the debug message should be cleaned up to state *what* rlimit is too low; the current message mentions nothing about file descriptors. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with the surrounding context to write something better. Otherwise, I'm not overly concerned about this. Nowadays, the default log level is '0', isn't it? So only users who have manually adjusted the smb.conf 'log level' setting would be seeing this warning. FWIW the smb.conf that prompted this report does not contain a 'log level' setting. # Run “testparm” to check for syntax erros. [global] workgroup = X netbios name = X server string = X security = user encrypt passwords = true passdb backend = tdbsam log file = /var/log/samba/log.machine max log size = 1000 syslog = 0 panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d usershare max shares = 100 # printing = cups [onset] comment = X read only = no path = X guest ok = no username = X valid users = X ; preexec = /bin/mount XX ; postexec = /bin/umount X That's it (25 lines). smb.conf.ucf-dist does not seem to mention a log level, either. Maybe I have missed some other config file or that is the bug? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
forwarded 608624 https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7898 quit Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Jonathan Nieder (jrnie...@gmail.com): I believe this is at least a documentation bug, as evidenced by the countless worried questions you can find online. IMHO the warning should just be suppressed (or the default fd limit increased if it is actually something the user needs to worry about). Maybe...but that should rather be discussed directly with upstream, Reported upstream. I suppose further discussion should happen there. Thanks again for the pointers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
Package: samba-common-bin Version: 2:3.5.6~dfsg-3 Severity: minor Justification: cosmetic Stock squeeze system. /etc/samba/smb.conf as below. Running testparm, I get a worrying message (the following is censored a bit): $ testparm Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384) Processing section [sharedfiles] Loaded services file OK. Server role: ROLE_STANDALONE Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions [global] workgroup = SOMETHINGINALLCAPS server string = Someone's Computer ; disable guest by mapping to nonexistent user. map to guest = Bad User syslog = 0 log file = /var/log/samba/log.machine max log size = 1000 panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d [sharedfiles] comment = Shared files path = /var/local/shared-files username = sharedfiles valid users = sharedfiles read only = No $ echo $? 0 Should one be worried about the rlimit_max comment? If there is anything I can do to help track this down, I'd be glad to hear it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#608624: [Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
Quoting Jonathan Nieder (jrnie...@gmail.com): Package: samba-common-bin Version: 2:3.5.6~dfsg-3 Severity: minor Justification: cosmetic Stock squeeze system. /etc/samba/smb.conf as below. Running testparm, I get a worrying message (the following is censored a bit): $ testparm Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384) Processing section [sharedfiles] Loaded services file OK. Server role: ROLE_STANDALONE Press enter to see a dump of your service definitions [global] workgroup = SOMETHINGINALLCAPS server string = Someone's Computer ; disable guest by mapping to nonexistent user. map to guest = Bad User syslog = 0 log file = /var/log/samba/log.machine max log size = 1000 panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d [sharedfiles] comment = Shared files path = /var/local/shared-files username = sharedfiles valid users = sharedfiles read only = No $ echo $? 0 Should one be worried about the rlimit_max comment? If there is anything I can do to help track this down, I'd be glad to hear it. http://www.mail-archive.com/samba@lists.samba.org/msg105543.html I think, from Jeremy's comment, that this bug is not one signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#608624: testparm.samba3: unexplained warning rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384)
Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Jonathan Nieder (jrnie...@gmail.com): $ testparm Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf rlimit_max: rlimit_max (1024) below minimum Windows limit (16384) [...] Should one be worried about the rlimit_max comment? If there is anything I can do to help track this down, I'd be glad to hear it. http://www.mail-archive.com/samba@lists.samba.org/msg105543.html Thanks! Here is the comment for reference: | It's a warning, you can safely ignore it. Windows 7 clients need to | have exactly the same number of open handles available as Windows | servers, else it fails in some file copy situations with a out of | handles message. Samba has taken care of it for you, but it's just | letting you know your fd limit is set a bit low. I believe this is at least a documentation bug, as evidenced by the countless worried questions you can find online. IMHO the warning should just be suppressed (or the default fd limit increased if it is actually something the user needs to worry about). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
