samba and inetd problems

[Ron Alexander]

Can someone PLEASE tell me if using inetd is the recommended way or not?

According to all the books I have, it is recommended.

I don't understand how it could work however, since inetd would hear the
connection requests on port 139 before the smb daemon would. As a result,
you would get more smb daemons starting and failing becuse they could not
lock the smbd.pid file.

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: samba-technical at samba.org [mailto:samba-technical at samba.org]On
Behalf Of Peter Samuelson
Sent: May 19, 2000 1:35 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-TECHNICAL
Subject: Re: samba and inetd problems



[Ron Alexander <rcalex at home.com>]
> If I put the entries in the inetd.conf file, I get some strange behavior.

As I recall, this isn't recommended, especially for nmbd.  The whole
NetBIOS suite of protocols confuses me at the best of times, but I
believe you can get major browsing problems if your nmbd isn't
persistent.  smbd is a little more up in the air, I admit.

As the old joke goes, I'd recommend "So don't do that."  Just run smbd
and nmbd with "-D" at boot.

> I see 3 listeners to port 139. 2 of them are wildcards and one is the
> specific interface I have in the smb.conf, but localhost is missing.

>From what I understand of the Unix sockets paradigm, you can't get the
functionality of "interfaces=" if you're running from inetd, because
you "interfaces=" specifies what ports you bind to, but if you're using
inetd, you aren't binding ports at all.  (inetd is binding them.)

> tcp        0      0  *:139               *:*                LISTEN
> tcp        0      0  134.111.220.160:139 *:*                LISTEN
> tcp        0      0  *:139               *:*                LISTEN

Don' know nothin' about how *that* got in there.  It is interesting, no
question about it.

Peter