The error message makes me think it's an account restriction set on
your windows server.
Does the user account you are using have any restrictions set
restricting the computers it's allowed to 'Log on to' in active
directory?
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Leonid Kogan wrote:
> Hi there,
> I
memory leak in idmap which we're waiting on a fix for.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Afshin Salek wrote:
> Any core/crash dumps?
>
> A network trace when you do "net view" and you get the error plus
> cifs-gendiag output would be useful.
>
> Afshin
>
> Ross
Whoops, forgot a file.. Here's the snoop output.
Ross
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
> Hi Afshin,
>
> No, it didn't crash at all, CIFS just stopped working.
>
> It seems that all shares are down with the same error, the one we
> usually use is
Hi folks,
We've just come across a brand new error on our CIFS server. We had a
write error appear on a client, and found that we were unable to
access the share.
Attempting to run a "net view" from a windows command prompt gives an error:
"System error 123 has occurred.
The filename, directory
I think you'll find that's standard behaviour for any windows server,
not just Solaris. There are a few NAS devices out there that have
implemented their own 'network recycle bin', but in general recycle
bins only work for local files.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Philipp Speck wrote:
> I r
Also, if you're looking at 0777 permissions, I believe those are the
wrong ones for cifs.
What does "ls -V" show you for the permissions?
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Joyce McIntosh wrote:
> If you can provide a binary network packet capture of a directory listing
> request from the windows
Those slides appear to show svrmgr.exe - the Windows NT server manager
utility, included in NT, 2000 and XP (and probably in the later
systems too, but I haven't checked).
However, if that works, you'll probably find that the more recent
management consoles also work. If you right-click my comput
I heard today that 116 had been recalled for some reason, but snv_117
would be out soon. I don't know what that means for OpenSolaris
though I'm afraid.
Personally I'm sticking with the fortnightly builds until OpenSolaris 2009.11.
Ross
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Daniel Liebster wrote:
>
Thanks Jay, sounds like a handy trick to have up my sleeve, but it
didn't help in this case, I still get the same error.
However, I have found that the details I gave above appear to be
wrong. It now looks like it's not /B causing this, it's /COPYALL. I
suspect that's an error on my part rather
only users can be a member of local groups.
>
> Afshin
>
> Ross Smith wrote:
>>
>> No, it won't be file permissions based. I've already granted full
>> permissions at the file and folder level.
>>
>> I was wondering if Solaris had something like the
Releases come out once a fortnight, so sometime around next Friday is
when I would expect to see it.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Carl Brewer wrote:
>> On 06/15/09 17:28, Carl Brewer wrote:
>> > Any update on this? I'm wanting to go live with a
>> LAN server and CIFS, but this is a showstopp
Jun 19, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Mark
Shellenbaum wrote:
> Ross Smith wrote:
>>
>> Oh of course! Sorry, I'm not used to having systems that aren't full
>> domain members, my brain's gotten lazy.
>>
>> This user has full rights in windows - they're a dom
Oh of course! Sorry, I'm not used to having systems that aren't full
domain members, my brain's gotten lazy.
This user has full rights in windows - they're a domain admin, but
they're not setup as any particular user on the Solaris system.
What do I need to do to grant permissions to a windows e
Yeah, I think 2009.11 is going to be one to watch out for. We'll be
running sxce until then, but we're definitely looking forward to
moving to the OpenSolaris codebase.
I guess it says a lot for my confidence in Sun that I'm seriously
considering rolling out a live server on a fornightly sxce bui
I've been having problems too, and yesterday was told about this bug by Sun:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6842427
Apparently that was introduced in snv_106 which is exactly when our
problems started. We'd been able to run snv_104 for ages without any
crashing problem
Well, the swap error I don't know about for sure, that may just be
something that's snuck in to sxce.
However this server is a clean install, isn't used for anything other
than cifs, and that error occurs after an idmap error, so I think it's
likely to be related.
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:46 P
May 20 08:24:55 ROB-039V smbd[4096]: [ID 266262 daemon.error]
ROBINSONS\Ross Smith: idmap failed
May 20 08:24:55 ROB-039V smbd[4096]: [ID 622271 daemon.error]
smb_idmap_restart: idmap_init failed (RPC error)
May 20 08:24:55 ROB-039V smbd[4096]: [ID 266262 daemon.error]
ROBINSONS\Build2003: idmap faile
Is this somebody else having the same problem? Just like with me, it
started after upgrading beyond snv_104.
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=103071&tstart=0
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
> Alan: Copying you in for info, but don't you dare
In case it helps, I just repeated this test here, on a sxce_114 CIFS
server joined to our domain:
1. Create a new folder 'ross-test' through windows. It inherits
permissions and just the 'domain admins' group has access
2. Solaris permissions:
# ls -vd ross-test
d-+ 2 2147491841 2147491
The snv or Solaris Express builds come out roughly every fortnight, so
114 should be ready any time now.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Jeb Campbell wrote:
> I'm not sure how people are deploying cifs ... is everyone running 101b in
> production?
>
> We are getting close to find the best mix
I'm sitting here waiting for 114 and crossing my fingers. We were
able to run snv_94 for ages without problems, but like yourselves we
really want shadow copy.
The problem is, since snv_106 we've not been able to get a stable server going.
However, I have a feeling that our problems may be uniqu
n there is:
Apr 29 13:37:24 rob-039v smbsrv: [ID 138215 kern.notice] NOTICE:
smbd[ROBINSONS\Ross Smith]: admi share not found
And the content of the idmap log file is:
# cat /var/svc/log/system-idmap\:default.log
[ Apr 29 16:56:03 Stopping because service restarting. ]
[ Apr 29 16:56:03 Execut
running an SMB server in
workgroup mode, or if you're not running an SMB server, then you can
ignore this message
Apr 29 04:24:06 rob-039v idmap[1965]: [ID 643943 daemon.notice] Normal
operation restored
Apr 29 07:48:59 rob-039v smbsrv: [ID 138215 kern.notice] NOTICE:
smbd[ROBINSONS\Ross Smith]:
If I'm following it right that sounds like a good suggestion, and
possibly a bug in the current implementation. I'd be interested to
see what the Sun guys think.
Ross
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Espen Martinsen wrote:
> Hi, does anyone knows the solution to this:
>
> I'm setting up a mix
you?
>
> I hadn't seen these messages. Perhaps the forum forwarding is messed
> up again, I'll notify the admins.
>
> Alan
>
> - Original Message - From: "Ross Smith"
> To: "Alan M Wright" ; "Afshin Salek"
> S
Nope, I'm waiting for it too. It's due this week according to the
schedule, so with any luck it'll appear by this weekend :)
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Alan M Wright writes:
>
>> I'd recommend snv_112.
>
> Thanks... snv_112 isn't available on the dev repo yet is it?
Hmm...
>From what I can see, it works fine if you grant everyone all
permissions, but then starts to fail as you try to lock it down. That
means there's one of two things going wrong:
1. The permissions are too restrictive.
2. The windows groups / users aren't mapping properly to the solaris one
Ok, as a long term windows admin, I'm going to chip in with a couple
of comments here.
Firstly, I should make clear that I think the CIFS team have done a
cracking job with this. An OpenSolaris file server works pretty much
exactly like a windows fileserver, which is a huge improvement over
Samba
It's working fine for me :D
I think it went in around snv_106. The only problem is that I've
found builds from snv_104 to be a bit unstable for CIFS. I'm looking
forward to trying snv_112 in a week or two since that has had a few
fixes in that I'm hopeful will resolve things.
Failing that, Open
Does it report available space to Windows users so they can manage their quota?
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Alan.M.Wright wrote:
> Ross myxi...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Have you guys seen the new user quota support being added to ZFS?
>> I've just asked there whether it su
Oh god no, snv_86 is very old, and I think CIFS was practically brand
new then. We've been running CIFS very reliably on snv_94, and
reasonably well in snv_106. It does seem a little more prone to
dropping out in snv_106, but there have been some new features added
across the board, so it's not e
The first thing I'd check is permissions. Search the list for "chmod
A=everyone", that's something I recommend as a starting step with
cifs.
Ross
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> (Sorry duplicate a post from `indiana' list:
>
> Message-ID: <87d4c9t8e8@newsguy.com>
>
There seem to be a few people at the minute saying cifs is slow. It's
not something I've noticed myself, and I just ran a quick test on my
home snv_106 server and it copied a 100MB file across in just over 2
seconds.
We're upgrading to snv_109 at work next week, so I'll do some tests
there too in
Domain mode, with windows managing all the permissions. ZFS is set to
case insensitive too.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Jean De Gyns wrote:
> sbe 11d can perform the backup if the agent isn't there but it will issue a
> warning in the backup report.
>
> Still I can't get my sbe to access
I have BackupExec 10d here, and I can browse shares on our Solaris
server fine (currently running snv_106). I don't get any prompting
for a user account, it'll just be using the system logon account we
have configured it to use by default.
I can't backup anything on the Solaris server though - I
that's great, thanks. we'll turn them on here with 112 :-)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Jose Borrego wrote:
> The oplocks are currently in build 111. There's, as of today, one CR related
> to oplocks and it should be fixed in 112.
>
>
>
> - Jose
>
>
>
> From: cifs-discuss-boun...@opensolari
It's probably not related, but I had a snv_106 server hang recently
while copying files over CIFS. Hadn't seen any problems at all before
I did that upgrade:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=90779&tstart=0
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Brent Jones wrote:
> Hello all,
> I
I always grant permissions to everybody at the root, then do
everything else from windows - I just find it easier. So the command
I run is just:
# chmod A=everyone@:full_set:fd:allow pool/filesystem
So far after doing that it's working just like a windows server as far
as permissions are concern
dows explorer.
Ross
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Brent Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
>> Well, it's repeatable, but I've no idea how lol.
>>
>> Just had exactly the same happen today after doing a lot of testing on
>
Works an absolute treat, thanks guys!!
Took under an hour to:
- Re-install Solaris from scratch on a new ZFS boot pool
- Join the system to the domain
- Import my storage pool (complete with CIFS shares and permissions!)
- Configure the time-slider auto snapshot service
Less than an hour to have
Sweet, thanks for the heads up Alan, this'll be going on our IT server
today, and somehow I can't see us going back to Windows for our file
servers now :-)
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Alan.M.Wright wrote:
> I know some people have been waiting for these features;
> they are available in sn
It's not quite the same any more though Natalie, the CIFS admin guide
recommends having these two lines in krb5.conf:
kpasswd_server = dc.example.com
kpasswd_protocol = SET_CHANGE
When I first started playing with CIFS (very early builds, 78 or so
from memory) I'm pretty sure I got CIFS working wi
t be related to that. Probably safe to ignore this for now and
I'll raise this again if I ever find what's actually causing it.
Ross
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> It looks like you're right, it's workin
>
> I just did a test from my colleagues machine (xp) and that works.
>
> see screenshot:
>
>
>
>
>
> Kristof
>
>
> On 04 Dec 2008, at 15:14, Ross Smith wrote:
>
>> Yeah, those permissions look fine to me. I think this might be a Vista
>> thing.
>>
Yeah, those permissions look fine to me. I think this might be a Vista thing.
Jeff, et all, are you guys able to test with Vista to see if you can
reproduce this problem?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Kristof Van Doorsselaere
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is the screenshot you asked for.
tes in apps :)
Ross
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Kristof Van Doorsselaere
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ross,
> Here are some screenshots
> kristof
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Ross Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> My testing was from Windows
My testing was from Windows XP SP3, accessing a snv_103 server that's been
joined to a domain, and I've just repeated the test from an XP SP2
client to a 2008.11 b98 server we also have on the domain, and that
seems to work fine too.
I'm not seeing any sign of the problems you're having there I'm
Hey guys,
It looks like you're right, it's working perfectly every time now.
I did the original testing on my own XP SP3 workstation, but I've just
gone and repeated the test on a whole bunch of machines (SP2 and SP3),
and it worked fine on all of them, and also now works fine on the
original wor
I spotted today in testing that under some situations it does seem to
update. I wasn't able to spot exactly when it was working though,
it's definately not working most of the time.
Will let you know if I find out anything more concrete.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Alan M Wright <[EMAIL PRO
re not the intended recipient, any use or further
> disclosure of this communication is strictly forbidden. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by telephone and
> delete all copies of this transmission as well as any attachments.
> On 02/12/2008, a
No major mistakes then, cool :-)
I'll add the ddns stuff to my notes and test it out, I can definately
see that being useful to know.
Regarding the hostname, I think it is done with the OpenSolaris
installer, but not with the one currently included in snv. That
installer doesn't prompt for a hos
Might this be down to caching?
Microsoft tune the fileserver to buffer requests in memory before
committing to disk. It makes for fast network performance, but does
leave you at risk of data loss if you had a power cut before the files
were written.
Solaris is generally much more careful, and I
No, you can't cross into separate filesystems with CIFS. While the
ZFS path structure makes them look like folders, they're actually very
different things, and CIFS can't treat them the same way.
There was a previous post on the forum asking this, with a much more
detailed reply from Sun, but I c
ROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ross Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Kevin Sumner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have installed OSol from 2008.11rc1 media (immediately updated to rc2 via
>>> pkg) and have created a zpool
You have deny entries in there which would tend to cause problems in
windows, since there deny entries take precedence over everything
else.
In particular the everyone deny entry is likely to cause problems.
I take a simple approach to security for CIFS, I grant everyone full
permissions on t
>Privileges:
>SeTakeOwnershipPrivilege: On
>SeBackupPrivilege: Off
>SeRestorePrivilege: Off
>Members:
>DOMAIN\rchatelain
>DOMAIN\Administrateur
>
> But nothing show in the mmc in the localgroup administrato
VSS / Previous Versions is something I'm after too. So far all I've
heard is that Sun have gotten a proof of concept working, but it's too
early to even estimate a release date for that feature.
I don't know about managing shares via MMC, with many CIFS appliances
you have to do the management vi
Ryan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can only set the quota at the top level then? Am I understanding this
> correctly, as I can't set individual quotas for nested ZFS filesystems?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesd
autohomes share???
>
> One last question, do you know how to move your /export/home/ directory to
> point to your zfs pool, rather than the pool that it was created under?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, I forgot to raise the CIFS script stuff until just recently.
I logged an RFE just last week for that:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6766364
I raised another RFE too which will be needed to store Windows roaming
profiles on a ZFS server:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_
Hey Victor,
We're in the early stages of testing Solaris CIFS here, but I thought I'd
share my thoughts anyway.
We've briefly tested CIFS in a workgroup and a domain environment with no
problems, but since we were a 100% windows house, I've not tried to do any
username mapping in Solaris. I've f
61 matches
Mail list logo
