hi Gilles,
once upon a time I had a similar problem
> I set up Samba 3.0.28,1 on a FreeBSD 6.3 host. I'd like users _not_ to
> see
> the hidden dot files in directories, but "hide dot files" doesn't work, no
> matter whether I put it in [global] or [homes]:
AFAIK Samba transfers dot fil
Hello,
I read the samba3 howto and now I tried svrmgr.exe.
With smbstatus I get only two users connected to this test server.
According to svrmgr there are far more with a very high value in the
time field. Does the svrmgr show connection that where previously open
but are no more connected ?
Guys,
I've been using samba PDC with LDAP backend for about 2 years now, and
they're working just fine. All this time, each time I join a new computer
(PC with win XP Pro, Me, win98), I use the root account and its samba
password. The problem is, I can use the root to login into the domain too,
wh
Hello,
I've build the latest samba version(3.0.28a) as shown below on my
NSLU2 running debian etch.
./autogen.sh
./configure --with-logfilebase=/usr/local/samba/log
make
make install
That worked without any error messages and I start samba as shown below:
/usr/local/samba/sbin/smbd -D
/usr/local/
Well i must say, it looks like the removal
of the profile list works. !
but the mentioning of the nt4 policy's not working with vista
was a big bummer...
isn't there an otherway to make policy's work with vista ??
like adding the SYSVOL share orso ??
or using the policy editor of xp/vista in com
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:23:57 +0200 Collen Blijenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CB> Well i must say, it looks like the removal
CB> of the profile list works. !
CB> but the mentioning of the nt4 policy's not working with vista
CB> was a big bummer...
CB> isn't there an otherway to make policy's w
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:21:46PM +0400, Dmitry V Shurupov wrote:
>
> Could you define more exactly the "latest code", please? We've
> installed Samba 3.2pre2 on our server and got no (better) result while
> testing with Windows client. Did you mean pre2 release or current git
> version of Sam
Hello
I have a problem with Samba+ACL and create new file permision.
I have in smb.conf:
create mask = 664
and I have a default ACL of:
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:group:smbadmins:rwx
default:group:pregrado:rwx
default:group:docentes:rwx
default:mask::rwx
default:other::r-x
a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Detert wrote:
>>> It seems strange that log.winbindd-idmap says it successfully loaded
>>> nss backend 'sfu':
>> Because the nss_info sfu and rfc2307 modules are built in the
>> idmap ad.so module and therefore initialized at the same time.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Weiser, Johann wrote:
> There is this really fancy sentence in the smb.conf man page: "It is
> possible to use smbd in a hybrid mode where it is offers both user and
> share level security under different NetBIOS aliases."
>
> There are a number of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ÕÅÔÃ wrote:
> Hello, I am a student.
> Now I need to know EXACTLY about How Samba Works.
> I have the source on samba-3.0.28a, but it's too many for me
> to read and understand 'cause I was a freshman. Is there a book/paper
> about the samba impleme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Moroder wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I read the samba3 howto and now I tried svrmgr.exe.
>
> With smbstatus I get only two users connected to this test server.
> According to svrmgr there are far more with a very high value in the
> time field. Does t
I've checked the samba code (sessetup) and found out that samba always send
spnego packet when Extended Security capability is ON.
(This can't be turned off/on ie. "use spnego = false")
Does it mean I can "never" connect to smb server that doesn't support spnego if
Extended Security is supporte
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 07:53:28AM -0400, Carlos Gomez Gomez Brizulela wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have a problem with Samba+ACL and create new file permision.
>
> I have in smb.conf:
>
> create mask = 664
>
> and I have a default ACL of:
>
> default:user::rwx
> default:group::r-x
> default:group:smb
Hello ,
I had a superb samba PDC server which functioned perfectly and its hosts
xp until the day my disk crashs.
I made backups. I reinstalled a debian and used my old /etc.
Indeed, when I loggue a XP station, I recover well my profiles on the
host but I can't access in the majority of the pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jewelyn Catingub wrote:
> I've checked the samba code (sessetup) and found out that samba
> always send spnego packet when Extended Security capability is ON.
> (This can't be turned off/on ie. "use spnego = false")
>
> Does it mean I can "never" con
Hi Jerry,
Please see below.
The supplementary groups are determined by mapping the Windows group
to a gid. I'm having to remember what we already convered so apoligies
fotr asking again. Are you running winbindd? or just manually
mapping groups to SIDs ? Seems to be the former.
Winbind is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Leonid Zeitlin wrote:
>> DOMAIN\lz has a different SID and token than the local
>> user "lz". Therefore the search for the local group SID
>> of "webdev" will not be found in the domain user's (DOMAIN\lz)
>> token. You can view the user's complete
TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
responsiveness. SO_RCVBUF=8192 and SO_SNDBUF=8192 are outdated and
actually make things worse if running with a 2.6 kernel (they do help if
running on a 2.4 kernel). But I too, am sure changing these will not
fix your problem (but
On 4/21/2008, James A. Dinkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
responsiveness.
this is contrary to what the Samba devs have repeatedly said in the past.
I hope someone will chime in here and set the record straight...
--
Best regards
I have lots of LNK files in a Samba share, which users have been creating for
some time. Now we have set different permissions to folders and some of the
shortcuts don't work because of that.
I have read that mount --bind can be used to give access to a forbidden folder
to someone, but this can
I meant to specify: it has a noticeable improvement ON MY SYSTEM. This
is from a personal, subjective view and I don't know that I've verified
this from any other documentation. I just want to point this out
because it COULD have been all in my head. I don't think overall
transfer speed changed,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:59PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 4/21/2008, James A. Dinkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
> >responsiveness.
>
> this is contrary to what the Samba devs have repeatedly said in the past.
>
> I hop
On 4/21/2008 3:51 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:21:59PM -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 4/21/2008, James A. Dinkel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
TCP_NODELAY is still usefull and has a noticeable improvement in
responsiveness.
this is contrary to what the Samba devs have
Thanks for the suggestions.
I wanted unix users (exclusively sysadmins and developers) to still get
their normal unix login directories. On the other hand, since this is a
file server, any connection via samba, should connect people to their
samba file directories.
It looks like your sugges
We don't need 100mbit access, but the current implementation is too
slow. Despite having fairly large pipes. Windows Clients have a ton of
latency especially when working with remote files in Office. Due to
the way windows/office are written the entire system freezes when a
write or read op
Toni Casueps wrote:
I have lots of LNK files in a Samba share, which users have been creating for
some time. Now we have set different permissions to folders and some of the
shortcuts don't work because of that.
I have read that mount --bind can be used to give access to a forbidden folder
to
Our Samba server running on CentOS 5.1 (upgraded from 5.0) with Samba
3.0.25b-1.el5_1.4 has been in place for about a year and a half. We had
no issues till about 2 months ago. This may have coincided with the
upgrade of CentOS 5.0 to 5.1 (which would have brought a new Samba
version with it).
This isn't technically a samba question, but I figure there will be
other samba users out there in the same boat.
I have just setup the first Vista box on our samba domain and I am
having some trouble with policies (they don't get applied).
I have had a look around and there is alot of talk a
Is it possible to take a SSHA password from an ldif and create a proper
sambaNTpassword from it? Here's the scenario: the ldap servers in our
organization do not have the samba schema installed and the likelihood
of that happening is slim. I still want to provide clients with as
close to a s
Steve Francia schrieb:
DFS in samba seems like a good approach, but doesn't it depend on a
clustered file system for replication? Am I missing something here?
DFS lets your users see the shares of different servers as directories
within a single share. So you could make a share on either side
31 matches
Mail list logo
