[jcifs] Issue listing "smb://"
eric.glass at gmail.com
Thu Jul 15 00:05:41 GMT 2004
> But I don't think a domain controller is necessarily an authority for
> browser protocol information. What reasons do we have to believe that you
> did not just "lucked out" in getting a machine that happend to have useful
> information? What does Windows NT or Windows 98 do? I would rather stick
> to observed behavior if we have a choice.
Here's an article with some good description:
All this master/backup/domain master browser stuff is quite
convoluted; but the relevant stuff would seem to be:
* The master browser (one on each subnet) has the browse list,
containing all servers in the domain and the list of all domains.
* Backup browsers call the master browser every 15 minutes to get a
copy of the browse list and list of domains.
* The browser service running on the PDC is the "domain master
browser"; it has a bias in elections to ensure it becomes the master
browser for its subnet.
So (in theory) the PDC for the domain specified in
"jcifs.smb.client.domain" would always be the master browser for its
subnet; and as such, would hold the browse list and list of all
domains. I think ;)
Assuming this is correct, there would be the additional question of
whether it is preferable to broadcast for the local master browser to
get the list and fallback to contacting the PDC for
jcifs.smb.client.domain, or to contact the PDC first (and broadcast as
the fallback behavior, or if no jcifs.smb.client.domain is specified).
More information about the jcifs