samba and inetd problems

[Sander Striker]

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

It is _not_ recommended.
Start smbd and nmbd with the -D option at boot time. Remove the entries
from inetd.conf

Sander Striker

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

Don't believe everything you read... :-)

>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
>