5:53 p.m.
I'm having a lot of trouble setting up a Samba share on a virgin F15
install.
Right now everything works until I click on a shared file (via Samba). At
that point I get a "the file or folder smb://nas/TEST does not exist" error.
This is what smbclient shows for 192.168.1.10, ie nas, my Samba server.
$ smbclient -U% -L192.168.1.10
Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.5.11-71.fc15]
Sharename Type Comment
--------- ---- -------
TEST Disk
IPC$ IPC IPC Service (Samba Server Version
3.5.11-71.fc15)
Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.5.11-71.fc15]
Server Comment
--------- -------
E4200
NAS Samba Server Version 3.5.11-71.fc15
Workgroup Master
--------- -------
WORKGROUP E4200
For the longest time smbclient showed there was no master. Today, my
E4200 wireless router, which has file sharing is showing up as master. I'm
not sure if I should be OK with that or not. Given my smb.conf file, I was
expecting nas to be the master. There doesn't appear to be a way to turn
file sharing off in the E4200. Maybe if I set the workgroup on it to null ?
# Samba config file created using SWAT
# from UNKNOWN (127.0.0.1)
# Date: 2011/09/19 21:06:20
[global]
server string = Samba Server Version %v
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 50
wins support = Yes
cups options = raw
workgroup = workgroup
local master = yes
domain master = yes
os level = 65
[homes]
comment = Home Directories
read only = No
browseable = No
[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
printable = Yes
browseable = No
[TEST]
path = /home/me/test/
guest ok = yes
read only = no
browseable = yes
Any ideas on why Samba isn't working ?
FWIW, I only used SWAT for looking at potential settings and setting a
couple globals. The rest I've been doing by hand. And I've been
restarting nmb and smb manually after each change.
I'm finding the online documentation for Samba to be umm... wanting. I'll
post up a little HOWTO when I get my NAS going.
Thanks
10:02 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
Revisiting a thread where you tried to pass off poorly informed opinions
as facts seemed to be rather unnecessary.
If you substitute "is" for "seemed to be rather" from the previous
sentence, you obtain a clean, readable sentence in English that
doesn't make you sound like the self-important twit you are.
As I'm sure the list moderator would inform me, this list is not for
the purpose of exchanging personal insults. I told the story to
demonstrate how important users are to getting things done and how
differently the world can look to someone who is simply using the
system to get things done, rather than to convince himself and the
world of his own importance.
Robert.
11:22 p.m.
On Sat, 2011-10-15 at 22:08 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Craig White
<craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 00:15 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com>
wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 20:29 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM, linux guy
<linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Surely its not that hard to get Samba going.
>> >> >
>> >> > If it wasn't worth the effort, how else did you enable file
sharing on a
>> >> > mixed client network ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> If you want it to work out of the box, move to Ubuntu.
>> >>
>> >> NFS, ssh, sftp can all be made to work using Cygwin. We just finished
>> >> a thread on that. There are lots better choices than using SMB, which
>> >> is notably vulnerable to hacking. I've got every damn thing
>> >> imaginable sharing every which way, and I don't touch Samba. I
used
>> >> to be an expert. Got tired of fiddling. My advice: get Microsoft out
>> >> of the loop.
>> > ----
>> > sure take samba advice from someone who 'doesn't touch samba' -
makes
>> > sense to me.
>> >
>> How many versions of samba and windows you been through? I been
>> through a lot. Go back a few years and see if you can make sense of
>> old documentation. How-to's are great. They have a shelf-life of
>> about six months.
> ----
> I have the Official Samba 3 HowTo dated 2003 here on my bookshelf. Yes,
> there has been 2 updates to it but they are incremental and not
> monumental changes. That's like 6 months X 16
>
> I have been running Samba since about 2.2.7 (about 2000) as a Windows
> Domain controller. I'm still a samba team member and the editor of
> wiki.samba.org
>
Since I have recently been keel-hauled by the list moderator, I want
to revisit this subject with a little story.
Some number of years ago, and maybe even before you knew what SMB
stood for, I happened to be on a Usenet group to read a panicked
message from a sysadmin who had to get his payroll out. Just one
problem: his data were on Linux and whatever he needed to get the
checks out was running under Windows, and Samba (as was often the case
then) wasn't cooperating.
I forget the details, but the problem was with gdm, and I knew how to
fix it. Too bad the Samba developer team wasn't right there to take
care of it, because Samba sure wasn't taking care of itself.
Suppose I or someone like me hadn't chanced along? No paychecks.
Overdrafts. Unpaid bills. Someone who swears he will never rely on
Samba and possibly on Linux and certainly not on RedHat ever again.
In retrospect, given the pure rudeness and arrogance on display here,
I sort of wish I could take it back and say, "Sorry bud. Guess it's
your tough luck."
----
it's rather amusing that someone who has demonstrably been wrong on
factual issues would now resort to some anecdotal reference to a
completely obscure situation in order to make some sort of vague point.
The situation is that Samba is at least the second widely used FOSS
package (behind only apache), it has the best documentation and it is
used throughout the world. It provides both Windows server and Windows
client functionality. It can mimic file share modes from Windows 95/98
through Active Directory and DFS. It can be a member server in any
Windows based network or a domain controller on its own and with Samba
4, can be a participating Active Directory controller. It integrates
with LDAP, Kerberos and other high level technologies.
While I would agree that cygwin or Microsoft's SFU can be valuable
tools, if you have a Windows based network, nothing is going to match
the speed, utility, quality and reliability of Samba... certainly not
cygwin and not SFU.
I find that you are given to express opinions for which you have little
basis of fact and do this repeatedly. To wit:
- "How-to's are great. They have a shelf-life of about six months."
(my 8 year old 'official Samba 3 How-To' is still sufficient)
- "There are lots better choices than using SMB, which is notably
vulnerable to hacking."
(has to come as quite a shock to business all across the world that
use SMB - but technically, most are actually using CIFS as is Samba
these days)
- "I forget the details, but the problem was with gdm"
(How could Samba have anything to do with gdm? Not possible)
I suppose that there are all sorts of low information users that might
come to a conclusion that they can't rely on Samba or Linux or Red Hat
based upon a lack of knowledge/understanding but that is the point...
it's hard to rely upon things that you don't understand and if someone
purposely decides not to make an effort to learn the technology, then
maybe that person should just use proprietary solutions by Microsoft or
others and pray that they just work out.
Telling people to use Ubuntu to solve a Fedora problem is just wrong.
Telling people to use something other than Samba to integrate with their
Windows network is just wrong.
Revisiting a thread where you tried to pass off poorly informed opinions
as facts seemed to be rather unnecessary.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
9:08 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 00:15 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 20:29 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> > Surely its not that hard to get Samba going.
> >> >
> >> > If it wasn't worth the effort, how else did you enable file sharing
on a
> >> > mixed client network ?
> >> >
> >> > Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> If you want it to work out of the box, move to Ubuntu.
> >>
> >> NFS, ssh, sftp can all be made to work using Cygwin. We just finished
> >> a thread on that. There are lots better choices than using SMB, which
> >> is notably vulnerable to hacking. I've got every damn thing
> >> imaginable sharing every which way, and I don't touch Samba. I used
> >> to be an expert. Got tired of fiddling. My advice: get Microsoft out
> >> of the loop.
> > ----
> > sure take samba advice from someone who 'doesn't touch samba' -
makes
> > sense to me.
> >
> How many versions of samba and windows you been through? I been
> through a lot. Go back a few years and see if you can make sense of
> old documentation. How-to's are great. They have a shelf-life of
> about six months.
----
I have the Official Samba 3 HowTo dated 2003 here on my bookshelf. Yes,
there has been 2 updates to it but they are incremental and not
monumental changes. That's like 6 months X 16
I have been running Samba since about 2.2.7 (about 2000) as a Windows
Domain controller. I'm still a samba team member and the editor of
wiki.samba.org
Since I have recently been keel-hauled by the list moderator, I want
to revisit this subject with a little story.
Some number of years ago, and maybe even before you knew what SMB
stood for, I happened to be on a Usenet group to read a panicked
message from a sysadmin who had to get his payroll out. Just one
problem: his data were on Linux and whatever he needed to get the
checks out was running under Windows, and Samba (as was often the case
then) wasn't cooperating.
I forget the details, but the problem was with gdm, and I knew how to
fix it. Too bad the Samba developer team wasn't right there to take
care of it, because Samba sure wasn't taking care of itself.
Suppose I or someone like me hadn't chanced along? No paychecks.
Overdrafts. Unpaid bills. Someone who swears he will never rely on
Samba and possibly on Linux and certainly not on RedHat ever again.
In retrospect, given the pure rudeness and arrogance on display here,
I sort of wish I could take it back and say, "Sorry bud. Guess it's
your tough luck."
Robert.
4:17 a.m.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:06:57 -0600
linux guy wrote:
Could you tell me what users you have set up for Samba and what you
log in
as ?
Since I'm the only one on my internal network, I have everything
setup as public shares so no logins are required, and somewhere in there
I tell samba to use user "tom" (that's me) as the nominal owner
for files that get written on smb mounts.
11:42 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 00:25 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Craig White
<craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:25 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I'm finding the online documentation for Samba to be umm... wanting.
I'll
>> > post up a little HOWTO when I get my NAS going.
>> >
>>
>> Samba how-to's always have a short shelf-life, because Microsoft wants
>> to make it as hard as possible.
> ----
> Yeah, the 'Official Samba 3 HowTo' has only been around since 2003
> ----
>>
>> In getting samba to work in tough situations, I invariably wound up
>> spending an awful lot of time reading packet sniffer output.
>>
>> I learned a lot about SMB, about networking, and about Windows, but,
>> in the end, it just wasn't worth the effort.
> ----
> samba duplicates virtually the entire array of Windows services from
> Windows 95 share modes to member server in an AD forest so it can be
> daunting to set up for those that don't understand Windows on a sysadmin
> level. Samba4 though still alpha level is capable of being a domain
> controller in AD configuration.
>
> Whether it's worth the effort or not is always best for everyone to
> decide for themselves but the samba 'By Example' documentation is pretty
> much for those that have a scenario in mind and it provides a step by
> step implementation. The Official HowTo is an exhaustive reference of
> how/why it works. There's something for everyone.
>
Well, since you're not everybody, maybe it would be best not to speak
as if you were. I don't have windows sysadmin knowledge and I don't
want it, so I have arranged it so that I can use mostly linux services
to get EVERYTHING done that's possible...if that's ok with you, sir.
Ubuntu has never failed to work out of the box. Fedora has never
worked out of the box.
----
I switched to Ubuntu server and it's fine. You may be right that out of
the box, Ubuntu worked for your scenario and Fedora didn't but
considering the many thousands of configuration possibilities of samba,
that doesn't actually surprise me or disappoint me. I certainly wouldn't
draw any significant conclusions from a zero effort configuration.
I have referred to myself as an integration specialist because I setup
Linux servers that provide Linux/Windows/Macintosh signon via a single
LDAP account/password and abstract the configuration so that the users'
HOME directory is the same directory regardless of how they login to the
network (Windows via Samba, Macintosh via Netatalk, Linux via NFS HOME
directories, all 'automounted' via LDAP automounts). In essence, users
get a 'roaming profile' regardless of which OS they use at any given
moment. The point being that Samba like Macintosh, like Linux is
reasonably flexible and can be used exceedingly well for Windows
clients.
For the record... I never once resorted to using a packet sniffer and
can't imagine why anyone would want to do that when you have logs. And
more to your point, I know a lot about SMB, networking and Windows and
in the end, if I am dealing with Windows clients, it's always worth
using Samba (Linux, not so much).
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
11:25 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:25 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm finding the online documentation for Samba to be umm... wanting.
I'll
> > post up a little HOWTO when I get my NAS going.
> >
>
> Samba how-to's always have a short shelf-life, because Microsoft wants
> to make it as hard as possible.
----
Yeah, the 'Official Samba 3 HowTo' has only been around since 2003
----
>
> In getting samba to work in tough situations, I invariably wound up
> spending an awful lot of time reading packet sniffer output.
>
> I learned a lot about SMB, about networking, and about Windows, but,
> in the end, it just wasn't worth the effort.
----
samba duplicates virtually the entire array of Windows services from
Windows 95 share modes to member server in an AD forest so it can be
daunting to set up for those that don't understand Windows on a sysadmin
level. Samba4 though still alpha level is capable of being a domain
controller in AD configuration.
Whether it's worth the effort or not is always best for everyone to
decide for themselves but the samba 'By Example' documentation is pretty
much for those that have a scenario in mind and it provides a step by
step implementation. The Official HowTo is an exhaustive reference of
how/why it works. There's something for everyone.
Well, since you're not everybody, maybe it would be best not to speak
as if you were. I don't have windows sysadmin knowledge and I don't
want it, so I have arranged it so that I can use mostly linux services
to get EVERYTHING done that's possible...if that's ok with you, sir.
Ubuntu has never failed to work out of the box. Fedora has never
worked out of the box.
Robert.
11:25 p.m.
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 00:15 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Craig White
<craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 20:29 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Surely its not that hard to get Samba going.
>> >
>> > If it wasn't worth the effort, how else did you enable file sharing on
a
>> > mixed client network ?
>> >
>> > Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
>> >
>>
>> If you want it to work out of the box, move to Ubuntu.
>>
>> NFS, ssh, sftp can all be made to work using Cygwin. We just finished
>> a thread on that. There are lots better choices than using SMB, which
>> is notably vulnerable to hacking. I've got every damn thing
>> imaginable sharing every which way, and I don't touch Samba. I used
>> to be an expert. Got tired of fiddling. My advice: get Microsoft out
>> of the loop.
> ----
> sure take samba advice from someone who 'doesn't touch samba' - makes
> sense to me.
>
How many versions of samba and windows you been through? I been
through a lot. Go back a few years and see if you can make sense of
old documentation. How-to's are great. They have a shelf-life of
about six months.
----
I have the Official Samba 3 HowTo dated 2003 here on my bookshelf. Yes,
there has been 2 updates to it but they are incremental and not
monumental changes. That's like 6 months X 16
I have been running Samba since about 2.2.7 (about 2000) as a Windows
Domain controller. I'm still a samba team member and the editor of
wiki.samba.org
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
11:11 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
For your problems...
chkconfig smb on
chkconfig nmb on
service nmb restart
service smb restart
Do you mean
systemctl enable smb.service
systemctl enable nmb.service
systemctl start nmb.service
systemctl start smb.service
Because if you do, I've done that.
It seems obvious that nmb service is not running on this system which
seems to be critical for your setup.
According to that status tab in SWAT, it is running.
It can take 15 minutes for browser elections to result in a final winner
so be patient.
Please explain this. And I'm testing with Dolphin and Konqueror.
That should take care of the problem with the wireless router
winning
the netbios master browser elections
As for smbclient //nas/test
what are the permissions of /home/me/test ?
Owned by a regular user with the name "me" of group users. Permission =
777.
smbclient //NAS/test -U ? # Who is the user trying to connect?
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
11:20 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:11 -0600, linux guy wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com>
wrote:
For your problems...
chkconfig smb on
chkconfig nmb on
service nmb restart
service smb restart
Do you mean
systemctl enable smb.service
systemctl enable nmb.service
systemctl start nmb.service
systemctl start smb.service
Because if you do, I've done that.
----
yeah sorry, still in F14 think mode
If you have nmb service running, it doesn't seem possible that given the
configuration you showed (os level 65, wins support = yes, domain master
= yes) that it could actually lose a browser election with the wireless
router. /var/log/samba/nmbd.log (and /var/log/messages) should show you
within 15 minutes that this system is the master browser and thus will
show as master from command smbclient -L localhost
----
It seems obvious that nmb service is not running on this
system which
seems to be critical for your setup.
According to that status tab in SWAT, it is running.
----
swat is not a tool I used after the first time I looked at it. Can't
really comment on it since it always seemed like a crippled puppy
----
It can take 15 minutes for browser elections to result in a
final winner
so be patient.
Please explain this.
----
function of Windows - read the Office Samba HowTo if you want to
understand Windows NetBIOS
----
And I'm testing with Dolphin and Konqueror.
----
don't generally use these myself but they should work. I seem to recall
that KDE had some other Windows network browsing daemon.
----
That should take care of the problem with the wireless
router
winning
the netbios master browser elections
As for smbclient //nas/test
what are the permissions of /home/me/test ?
Owned by a regular user with the name "me" of group users. Permission
= 777.
smbclient //NAS/test -U ? # Who is the user trying to
connect?
----
again, who is the 'user' ?
Does this user have both a Linux login and a Samba account?
# grep craig /etc/passwd
craig:x:1000:1000:craig:/home/craig:/bin/bash
I'm a Linux user...
root@srv2:~# pdbedit -Lv craig
Unix username: craig
NT username: craig
... snip ...
I'm a samba user...
If I weren't a samba user, I would necessarily need to add myself as a
samba user...
smbpasswd -a craig
Personally, I am using LDAP which obviously you are not using so my
methodologies for creating 'users' are entirely different but I have
given you the basics for users in samba.
A samba user MUST be a Linux user (or be mapped to a linux user
in /etc/samba/smbusers). The samba users' password is not the same as
the linux users' password (details too technical to go into here).
If the linux user craig can access /home/me/test then the samba user
craig an access //NAS/test
This just gets you started - you really should be reading through the
official documentation (and forget about all the various other 'aids'
that you will stumble onto on the Internet). You should learn to
implement groups, net group mapping, 'inherit privileges' and you will
probably have a decent setup.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
11:15 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 20:29 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Surely its not that hard to get Samba going.
> >
> > If it wasn't worth the effort, how else did you enable file sharing on a
> > mixed client network ?
> >
> > Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
> >
>
> If you want it to work out of the box, move to Ubuntu.
>
> NFS, ssh, sftp can all be made to work using Cygwin. We just finished
> a thread on that. There are lots better choices than using SMB, which
> is notably vulnerable to hacking. I've got every damn thing
> imaginable sharing every which way, and I don't touch Samba. I used
> to be an expert. Got tired of fiddling. My advice: get Microsoft out
> of the loop.
----
sure take samba advice from someone who 'doesn't touch samba' - makes
sense to me.
How many versions of samba and windows you been through? I been
through a lot. Go back a few years and see if you can make sense of
old documentation. How-to's are great. They have a shelf-life of
about six months.
Robert.
11:06 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Tom Horsley <horsley1953(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:17:23 -0600
linux guy wrote:
> Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
Not exactly.
<snip>
Thank you very much for sharing that, Tom.
I find the following two lines very interesting.
dns proxy = No
ldap ssl = no
I'll test them out in the morning.
I used to use the web interface to try and
set up samba on each install of a new fedora, but at some
point, I could no longer duplicate my working setup by
starting from scratch with the web interface. I never figured
out why,
Interesting.
Could you tell me what users you have set up for Samba and what you log in
as ?
10:36 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:25 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM, linux guy
<linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm finding the online documentation for Samba to be umm... wanting. I'll
> post up a little HOWTO when I get my NAS going.
>
Samba how-to's always have a short shelf-life, because Microsoft wants
to make it as hard as possible.
----
Yeah, the 'Official Samba 3 HowTo' has only been around since 2003
----
In getting samba to work in tough situations, I invariably wound up
spending an awful lot of time reading packet sniffer output.
I learned a lot about SMB, about networking, and about Windows, but,
in the end, it just wasn't worth the effort.
----
samba duplicates virtually the entire array of Windows services from
Windows 95 share modes to member server in an AD forest so it can be
daunting to set up for those that don't understand Windows on a sysadmin
level. Samba4 though still alpha level is capable of being a domain
controller in AD configuration.
Whether it's worth the effort or not is always best for everyone to
decide for themselves but the samba 'By Example' documentation is pretty
much for those that have a scenario in mind and it provides a step by
step implementation. The Official HowTo is an exhaustive reference of
how/why it works. There's something for everyone.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
10:29 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 16:53 -0600, linux guy wrote:
I'm having a lot of trouble setting up a Samba share on a virgin
F15
install.
Right now everything works until I click on a shared file (via Samba).
At that point I get a "the file or folder smb://nas/TEST does not
exist" error.
This is what smbclient shows for 192.168.1.10, ie nas, my Samba
server.
$ smbclient -U% -L192.168.1.10
Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.5.11-71.fc15]
Sharename Type Comment
--------- ---- -------
TEST Disk
IPC$ IPC IPC Service (Samba Server Version
3.5.11-71.fc15)
Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.5.11-71.fc15]
Server Comment
--------- -------
E4200
NAS Samba Server Version 3.5.11-71.fc15
Workgroup Master
--------- -------
WORKGROUP E4200
For the longest time smbclient showed there was no master. Today,
my E4200 wireless router, which has file sharing is showing up as
master. I'm not sure if I should be OK with that or not. Given my
smb.conf file, I was expecting nas to be the master. There doesn't
appear to be a way to turn file sharing off in the E4200. Maybe if I
set the workgroup on it to null ?
# Samba config file created using SWAT
# from UNKNOWN (127.0.0.1)
# Date: 2011/09/19 21:06:20
[global]
server string = Samba Server Version %v
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 50
wins support = Yes
cups options = raw
workgroup = workgroup
local master = yes
domain master = yes
os level = 65
[homes]
comment = Home Directories
read only = No
browseable = No
[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
printable = Yes
browseable = No
[TEST]
path = /home/me/test/
guest ok = yes
read only = no
browseable = yes
Any ideas on why Samba isn't working ?
FWIW, I only used SWAT for looking at potential settings and setting a
couple globals. The rest I've been doing by hand. And I've been
restarting nmb and smb manually after each change.
I'm finding the online documentation for Samba to be umm... wanting.
I'll post up a little HOWTO when I get my NAS going.
----
First off - samba documentation is as good as it gets for open source
software.
http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/
Official Samba 'Howto'
or
Samba by Example
2 different approaches to complete Samba configuration
For your problems...
chkconfig smb on
chkconfig nmb on
service nmb restart
service smb restart
It seems obvious that nmb service is not running on this system which
seems to be critical for your setup.
It can take 15 minutes for browser elections to result in a final winner
so be patient.
That should take care of the problem with the wireless router winning
the netbios master browser elections
As for smbclient //nas/test
what are the permissions of /home/me/test ?
smbclient //NAS/test -U ? # Who is the user trying to connect?
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
10:15 p.m.
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 20:29 -0400, Robert Myers wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM, linux guy
<linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Surely its not that hard to get Samba going.
>
> If it wasn't worth the effort, how else did you enable file sharing on a
> mixed client network ?
>
> Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
>
If you want it to work out of the box, move to Ubuntu.
NFS, ssh, sftp can all be made to work using Cygwin. We just finished
a thread on that. There are lots better choices than using SMB, which
is notably vulnerable to hacking. I've got every damn thing
imaginable sharing every which way, and I don't touch Samba. I used
to be an expert. Got tired of fiddling. My advice: get Microsoft out
of the loop.
----
sure take samba advice from someone who 'doesn't touch samba' - makes
sense to me.
Craig
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
7:29 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Surely its not that hard to get Samba going.
If it wasn't worth the effort, how else did you enable file sharing on a
mixed client network ?
Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
If you want it to work out of the box, move to Ubuntu.
NFS, ssh, sftp can all be made to work using Cygwin. We just finished
a thread on that. There are lots better choices than using SMB, which
is notably vulnerable to hacking. I've got every damn thing
imaginable sharing every which way, and I don't touch Samba. I used
to be an expert. Got tired of fiddling. My advice: get Microsoft out
of the loop.
Robert.
7:27 p.m.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:17:23 -0600
linux guy wrote:
Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
Not exactly. I used to use the web interface to try and
set up samba on each install of a new fedora, but at some
point, I could no longer duplicate my working setup by
starting from scratch with the web interface. I never figured
out why, but since then, I've just been copying my old
/etc/samba/smb.conf file from one fedora to the next and
it keeps on working every time (but I only do file sharing,
no printer sharing, I use IPP from windows for network
printing). Here's my SWAT created file from 2006:
# Samba config file created using SWAT
# from 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1)
# Date: 2006/09/04 10:16:43
[global]
workgroup = WORKGRP
server string = Samba Server
security = SHARE
null passwords = Yes
log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log
max log size = 50
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
printcap name = /etc/printcap
dns proxy = No
ldap ssl = no
cups options = raw
guest account = tom
[homes]
comment = Home Directories
read only = No
browseable = No
[printers]
comment = All Printers
path = /var/spool/samba
printable = Yes
browseable = Yes
[public]
comment = Public Share on Zooty
path = /zooty/public
read only = No
guest ok = Yes
[video]
comment = Video on Zooty
path = /zooty/tmp/vid
read only = No
guest ok = Yes
[backupgrommit]
comment = Network backup for grommit
path = /backup/grommit
read only = No
guest ok = Yes
7:17 p.m.
Surely its not that hard to get Samba going.
If it wasn't worth the effort, how else did you enable file sharing on a
mixed client network ?
Has anyone gotten Samba working from a virgin F15 install ?
6:25 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM, linux guy <linuxguy123(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm finding the online documentation for Samba to be umm... wanting. I'll
post up a little HOWTO when I get my NAS going.
Samba how-to's always have a short shelf-life, because Microsoft wants
to make it as hard as possible.
In getting samba to work in tough situations, I invariably wound up
spending an awful lot of time reading packet sniffer output.
I learned a lot about SMB, about networking, and about Windows, but,
in the end, it just wasn't worth the effort.
Robert.
4588
days inactive
4614
days old
18 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Craig White -
linux guy -
Robert Myers -
Tom Horsley