On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:50:50 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
[...]
>you do not have a *very* good reason to enable them, could you please retry
>without spinlocks?
Ok, I'm just recompiling Samba without spinlock support.
Obviously I have to wait until this night so that the fileserver becomes less
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 19:34:16 -0600 (CST), Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>
>> What exactly does that mean? I compiled Samba with large file support.
>> Was this an error? I absolutely NEED large-file support. (To recap, this
>> i
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:00:24 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>> Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back
>> again. :-(
>
>Thanks nevertheless. As one resort, could you try
>
&
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:37:17 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
>> Why should Samba be the ONLY (apparent) application that doesn't feel hap=
>py with=20
>> XFS over EVMS?
>
>I'm running Samba on XFS+EVMS (on Debian ;) with no problems. Even on
>buggy versions of XFS, I've never seen this error;
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is
>> 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in
use
>> for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I
>> c
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:20:26 -0600 (CST), Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
[...]
>Looks like the tdb went over the 4Gb line. As a quick work around,
>Stop nmbd; rm /var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb; and start nmbd back up.
No, this has never been a work-around. The problem comes up again VERY quickly.
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 15:58, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
>> >> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb
>> >> >it does not hold any vi
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb
>> >it does not hold any vital information.
>>
>> The problem has reappeared even after I removed the above file:
>>
>> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0]
>> tdb/tdbutil.
Hi there,
I can't believe that NO-ONE of you tech guys can comment on this?!
Thanks,
Ralf
= 8x ==
Hi there,
since I upgraded our fileserver running Debian 3.0/i386 with Samba 2.2.7a (a
package I created myself) I'm seeing the following messages
Hi there,
since I upgraded our fileserver running Debian 3.0/i386 with Samba 2.2.7a (a
package I created myself) I'm seeing the following messages in syslog:
Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/01/28 14:55:50, 0]
tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(531)
Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: td
10 matches
Mail list logo
