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
