On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, René Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Javid Abdul-AJAVID1 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>MSDFS is filey system right, how will it help to load balance samba
> >>>connections
> >>>what criteria does it r
Richard Sharpe wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, John E. Malmberg wrote:
>
>
>
>>Javid Abdul-AJAVID1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MSDFS is filey system right, how will it help to load balance samba
>>>connections
>>>what criteria does it rely to load balance ( like memory, or no of
>>>connetions etc.. )
>>>
I've also just recieved this t-patch, and I'll be testing this weekend. I'll
post results asap.
According to my contact at sun, they are looking at a Jan/03 date for the
official release.
Cheers,
T.
Romeril, Alan wrote:
> I have just been testing a binary T-patch fix for Solaris 8 on
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> Javid Abdul-AJAVID1 wrote:
> > MSDFS is filey system right, how will it help to load balance samba
> > connections
> > what criteria does it rely to load balance ( like memory, or no of
> > connetions etc.. )
>
> MSDFS does not really load balance.
Has anyone found a way to identify WinXP as the remote architecture of a client
rather than just identifying it as Win2000? From everything I can find it is
acting pretty much identical to a Win2000 client, which is a bit of an issue
since I really would need to try to make a distinction.
Any id
Javid Abdul-AJAVID1 wrote:
> MSDFS is filey system right, how will it help to load balance samba
> connections
> what criteria does it rely to load balance ( like memory, or no of
> connetions etc.. )
MSDFS does not really load balance. MSDFS distributes the
subdirectories of a directory betwee
I'm trying to get winbindd working (2.2.6pre2) but it won't start because it
claims to not find the domain controller (Samba as PDC) that the rest of the
network is happily using.
-d10 output from winbindd:
Could not open a connection to U_MTPPI for \PIPE\lsarpc
(NT_STATUS_DOMAIN_CONTROLLER_NO
"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>
> At 21:51 07.10.2002 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > here're the first steps of my pdb_set_* patch (THIS is NOT ready!!!)
> > >
> > > every pdb_set function gets a uint8 flag (DEFAULT | SE
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> here's a small patch to add the printer comment as parameter for the add
> printer command.
This is probably a legitimate need. I also think we should remove
the "win9x driver location" and "remote machine netbios name" para
Hi list,
my work is reaching a point I want to start receiving comments before I
put more effort into it.
As said on some sources, I was not satisfied with how the new sam
interface was coming out, and wanted to explorer a slightly different
path.
But I have little time and can work mostly on the
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Javid Abdul-AJAVID1 wrote:
> MSDFS is filey system right, how will it help to load balance samba
> connections
> what criteria does it rely to load balance ( like memory, or no of
> connetions etc.. )
Well, that is up to you. It is simple enough to roundrobin the entries.
Do
I have just been testing a binary T-patch fix for Solaris 8 on a machine
here looks like the fix they`ve got is a good `un. Tridge`s locker
program runs much better on the box I tested this patch on. For much
better read a hell of a lot better in some cases. I`ve mailed off
asking for any n
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Pierre Belanger wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm including a "tiny patch" for utils/status.c , in
> diff -u format ... Hope I did this right!
>
> After applying the patch...
>
> # ./bin/smbstatus -P
> {snip}
> read_bytes: 0
> write_count:
Folks,
I would like to propose the following naming conventions for
discussions here ('cause I'm always wondering what people mean
when they say theya re running 3.0)
3.0 - refers to either
(a) an distributed 3.0 alpha snapshot, or
(b) the latest checkout of the SAMBA_3_0 cvs bran
Neil Hoggarth wrote:
> Does anyone know if there have been any further developments on the
> Solaris fcntl() issue?
I haven't heard anything: customers tend to hear before
I do, though.
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
DMCO's MTEC team in Toronto
At 21:51 07.10.2002 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > here're the first steps of my pdb_set_* patch (THIS is NOT ready!!!)
> >
> > every pdb_set function gets a uint8 flag (DEFAULT | SET | CHANGED)
> >
> > then the backends can decide to o
"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> here're the first steps of my pdb_set_* patch (THIS is NOT ready!!!)
>
> every pdb_set function gets a uint8 flag (DEFAULT | SET | CHANGED)
>
> then the backends can decide to only store changed values...
>
> metze
Looks like a good start
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Broughton, Jim wrote:
> This is Sun UK's answer after I requested the fix for Bug ID:4700402
> ...
> Just to confirm, the fix will be put in to the latest version of
> solaris first (solaris 10) then back ported to earlier revisions.
> Although this has not happened yet, it
Eddie Lania wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> I like the use of the Usermanager for domains for windows.
> I played a litlle with this tool and noticed that the window95 version
> doesn't work because the "RPC service is unavailable" it say's.
>
> The NT version does work, altough there are some limitati
Hi list,
I like the use of the Usermanager for domains for windows.
I played a litlle with this tool and noticed that the window95 version
doesn't work because the "RPC service is unavailable" it say's.
The NT version does work, altough there are some limitations.
My questions at this moment ar
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:12:00PM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
> > Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:22:26PM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > net help user suggests that net user add accepts opti
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:15:24PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:22:26PM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > net help user suggests that net user add accepts optional -F user_flags,
> > > but in scanning the code, I don't
Hi Andrew,
here're the first steps of my pdb_set_* patch (THIS is NOT ready!!!)
every pdb_set function gets a uint8 flag (DEFAULT | SET | CHANGED)
then the backends can decide to only store changed values...
metze
-
S
Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
> > Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:22:26PM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > net help user suggests that net user add accepts optional -F user_flags,
> > > > but in scann
Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> The attached patch fixes an annoying, but not dangerous, off-by-one
> error in the RNetShareEnum in smbd/lanman.c. push_ascii() already takes
> into account the null termination, so subtracting one from the size of
> the destination buffer leaves us one byte short for t
25 matches
Mail list logo
