[Samba] Re: cifs problems

[George He]

yes, it is strange. exactly the same setting worked fine before with older
version samba and linux kernel (on my client, server was not toucged so it's
running a much older version).
I'm not sure whether it's samba or the kernel that breaks my stuff.
and I am not able to roll back to an older version samba because of all
those dependency issues.
Thanks,
George

On 10/10/08, Mike Gallamore <mike at mpi-cbg.de> wrote:
>
> Strange, that  seems to be all that my predecessor to get ours to work at
> my work. I'm not sure if your set up is the same, but our fileserver is
> aware of every user in the institute (we do biology research). I could see
> touch maybe not knowing how to work when the local user and remote user
> aren't identical (same UID, and groups settings) but that is just a guess.
> Here is the global part of our configuration file, we are running 3.2.2 on a
> Solaris 10 system:
>
> [global]
>        workgroup = MPI-CBG
>        netbios name = Fileserver
>        wins support = yes
>        security = user
>        log level = 0
>        log file = /var/adm/samba/log.smbd
>        inherit permissions = yes
>        load printers = no
>        printing = bsd
>        printcap name = /dev/null
>        disable spoolss = yes
>        deadtime = 5
>        getwd cache = yes
>        oplocks = yes
>        socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY
>
>        smb passwd file = /etc/samba/smbpasswd
>        max disk size=2000000
>        guest ok = no
>        encrypt passwords = yes
>        mangling method = hash
>        mangled names = no
>
>        ; make file deletions more simple
>        delete veto files = yes
>        delete readonly = yes
>
>        follow symlinks = yes
>        wide links = yes
>        unix extensions = no
>
> The only bit I thought had anything to do with simlinks is the last three
> lines. wide links is supposed to tell Samba not to check to see if the
> target of a link is in a share as well, it is recommended to be set to yes
> here:
> http://tldp.org/LDP/solrhe/Securing-Optimizing-Linux-RH-Edition-v1.3/chap29sec287.html because
> it saves 6 system calls so has a pretty big performance benefit. Anyways,
> you might see something that I don't.
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:58 PM, George He wrote:
>
>  Hi Mike,
>> Thanks for the help, but neither of these works for me.
>> After I added the 2 lines in smb.conf, both touch and ln -s behave the
>> same.
>> Besides, I lost all permissions on another client machine (redhat EL4)
>> that mounted the data share using the same way I described earlier (it
>> worked fine and after I remove the 2 lines, it works fine again).
>> Any other ideas?
>> George
>>
>>
>