Well, I'm not so techie about samba so I cannot talk much about it. But in
conjunction with my problem, right now I have this in my smb.conf:
[global]
# other parameters in here
log level = 1 vfs:0
[engineering]
path = /solid
comment = Put your data here
brows
Jeremy-
Thanks a bunch for the quick reply! I'll build up a 3.0.32 and try it.
I'll also try to remember to reply with my results.
Thanks a bunch to you and the Samba team for the excellent work.
-Eric
>
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:14:38PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi all-
> >
> >
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 06:14:38PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> I searched quite a bit and couldn't really come up with anything, so I'm
> posting to the list to hopefully find out if I have any options.
>
> I've got a production FC6 box running 3.0.24-7.fc6 build of samba server
Hi all-
I searched quite a bit and couldn't really come up with anything, so I'm
posting to the list to hopefully find out if I have any options.
I've got a production FC6 box running 3.0.24-7.fc6 build of samba server
that's very stable for us. It's a member of an ADS domain w/ server 2003
doma
No problem Jeremy, have a safe trip back home. I'll look forward to your
solution next week.
Thank you,
Chandra
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:07 PM
To: Saddi, Chandra
Cc: Jeremy Allison; David Eisner; samba
Subject:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:05:53PM +, David Markey wrote:
> Ok that seems to work properly. When is 3.2.5 expected out?
Karolin (our release manager) is on vacation at the moment.
We'll probably coordinate next week and discuss a timeframe
then.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the foll
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:37:46AM -0500, Saddi, Chandra wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> I tried with version 3.0.28a, as per other user's suggestion I've copied
> posix_acls.c from 3.0.25 to 3.0.28a and compiled it, now it is working
> very well. I know it is not a good idea to copy the file from lower
> ve
Hi List,
Here is a small snip from my config:
[homes]
comment = Home directories
browseable = no
read only = no
create mask = 0700
directory mask = 0700
valid users = %S
hide dot files = yes
[shared]
comment = Shared by all SREC Engineering employees
path = /data/shares/shared
creat
I am using the following in my smb.conf on samba-3.0.28-0.el5.8
idmap domains = MYDOMAIN
idmap config MYDOMAIN:backend= rid
idmap config MYDOMAIN:base_rid = 998
idmap config MYDOMAIN:range = 998 - 4
idmap uid = 998-2
id
Yes, this server got an other network card than the other ones.
I may try installing another one to see if the problem is comming from the
nic.
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 02:36:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Now I upgraded samba to 3.0.32 but this didn't fix the problem.
>>
>> We have thr
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 02:36:20PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now I upgraded samba to 3.0.32 but this didn't fix the problem.
>
> We have three other servers with freebsd and samba in our environment.
> I also compared the settings and the only difference I can find is that on
> this server
Hi,
I'm working with two AD servers (I was trying to setup a primary and
secondary):
From smb.conf:
password server = server1, server2
security = ADS
This is the scenario I tested and the results:
===> Start:
CLDAP is sent to server1.
Authentication requests (microsoft-ds) are sent to server1
Jeremy,
I tried with version 3.0.28a, as per other user's suggestion I've copied
posix_acls.c from 3.0.25 to 3.0.28a and compiled it, now it is working
very well. I know it is not a good idea to copy the file from lower
version but I just want to give you some idea on where the problem might
be. I
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 10:58:43PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> "Jeremy" == Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Mike" == Mike Gallamore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> Example 4: allow only hosts in NIS netgroup "foonet", but deny
Eric> access from one particular host
Ok that seems to work properly. When is 3.2.5 expected out?
David Markey wrote:
> Just applied it and it locked out the account(Yay), now i'm waiting 30
> mins to see if it unlocks the account after that time, which it should.
>
>
>
> Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 10:55:57PM
Hi list.
I'm trying to replace a NFS remote filesystem with a Samba share, and while
I'm pleased to find CIFS supports POSIX semantics and Samba implements them,
I haven't managed to get it working properly in this case.
In particular, I have two issues:
First, permissions looks right in the c
compilling! gonna give it a try! Thanks!
El jue, 06-11-2008 a las 06:16 -0800, Jeremy Allison escribió:
> diff --git a/source/passdb/pdb_interface.c
> b/source/passdb/pdb_interface.c
> index cd34c89..dd9fd1b 100644
> --- a/source/passdb/pdb_interface.c
> +++ b/source/passdb/pdb_interface.c
> @@ -
Well hard to argue with the creator, though I'm sure many try ;)
On Nov 6, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:01:45AM +0100, Mike Gallamore wrote:
I think something like a sudoers file would make since, ie no one
gets
access unless they are on the list. Suggest
Just applied it and it locked out the account(Yay), now i'm waiting 30
mins to see if it unlocks the account after that time, which it should.
Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 10:55:57PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I can confirm that 3.0.32 does lock out accounts, I'll be g
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:01:45AM +0100, Mike Gallamore wrote:
> I think something like a sudoers file would make since, ie no one gets
> access unless they are on the list. Suggestion:
>
> Perhaps host allow should be the only option. If access controls are
> enabled, people only get access i
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 10:55:57PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can confirm that 3.0.32 does lock out accounts, I'll be going back to
> that until the issue is fixed in 3.2.x
Ok, can you try the following patch for 3.2.x and 3.3.x ?
(Thanks for BoYang @ Novell for tracking down the underly
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 07:16:50PM +0700, FC Mario Patty wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I think I've finally found the cause of my problem. After playing with some
> parameters, I've found out that the "culprit" is "vfs objects = full_audit"
> line. Is this a known bug or a new one? Currently I commented out
Hi Volker
Thanks for your quick answer.
Now I upgraded samba to 3.0.32 but this didn't fix the problem.
We have three other servers with freebsd and samba in our environment.
I also compared the settings and the only difference I can find is that on
this server with these problems is the acl sup
Thanks for the suggestion Dennis, but surely this only affects the server
service on the Windows clients. We need to stop our v3.0.24 SAMBA server
disconnecting clients so quickly. It shouldn't require a client-side fix
for what seems to be an smbd issue on the server.
Perhaps Debian have compiled
Hello @all,
we have a cups server offering printers for linux clients (ppd/pdf
driver) and windows clients (raw driver).
Is there a way of hiding some of the printers (the linux ones) for the
samba users?
Greets,
Mario Minati
--
planungsteam Detmold
Kehrbüldeweg 22
32760 Detmold
Tel: +4
OK! Nice, thanks! =)
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jueves, 06 de Noviembre de 2008 12:13 a.m.
To: David Markey
Cc: Victor Medina; samba@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba 3.2.4 not locking accounts?
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 05:01:15PM +000
Great to hear it. If you need to get me to test any patches feel free to
ask.
Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 05:01:15PM +, David Markey wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5825
>>
>>
>>
>> I raised this bug a while ago experiencing what you are.Nobody seems
Every few weeks users are not able to logon anymore until i restart the
winbind daemon. The message in winbind.log is NT_STATUS_NO_LOGON_SERVERS.
after that PAM (system-auth --> pam_succeed_if.so) is not able to resolve
the active directory groups anymore. The quick fix is to create a new
situation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I'm currently running Ubuntu Intrepid and I'm testing Samba (winbind
specifically) with our Active Directory.
Our AD schema has been extended with the proper fields for storing
rfc2307 information.
Short explanation:
With Samba 3.2.3 the homedir
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 02:16:19AM -0800, Sudheer Kurichiyath wrote:
> I have a follow up question? Is there any timeout
> associate with "reset on zero vc" option? What will happen
> if the first client does not reconnect and a second client
> issues a lock request.
You might want to add the par
Thank you Volker.
I have a follow up question? Is there any timeout associate with "reset on zero
vc" option? What will happen if the first client does not reconnect and a
second client issues a lock request.
Thanks and Regards
Sudheer
> -Original Message-
> From: Volker Lendecke
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 01:45:22AM -0800, Sudheer Kurichiyath wrote:
> Does Samba server have a grace period that allows a client
> to reopen its files and reacquire locks on them before the
> locks are given to other clients? If there is no grace
> period, is there a way for the client to avoid th
Hello,
Does Samba server have a grace period that allows a client to reopen its files
and reacquire locks on them before the locks are given to other clients? If
there is no grace period, is there a way for the client to avoid the lock
ownerships files if the connection goes away for a short pe
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:33:37AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
>
> We've here some problems with Samba on a freeBSD-Server.
>
> FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE
> Samba Version 3.0.25a
>
> The problem is about locking of open files. For example when a user A
> opens a excel-sheet and a user B also o
Hi
We've here some problems with Samba on a freeBSD-Server.
FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE
Samba Version 3.0.25a
The problem is about locking of open files. For example when a user A
opens a excel-sheet and a user B also opens the same file, user B won't
only open this file as read-only.
We moved from a Wi
I think something like a sudoers file would make since, ie no one gets
access unless they are on the list. Suggestion:
Perhaps host allow should be the only option. If access controls are
enabled, people only get access if the host allow field is defined and
if their name is on the list.
O
36 matches
Mail list logo
