Samba 4 and dhcp

Andrew Bartlett abartlet at
Sat Dec 29 18:05:56 MST 2012

On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 15:45 +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
> >>
> >>> With the internal server, you get nothing.
> >> That's certainly not correct if you pick the correct log level.
> > I was talking about the standard log level i.e. log level not set in
> > smb.conf
> On log level 0, only pretty catastrophic things should be logged,
> otherwise the log would be quite large in seconds. I had a bunch of
> logging output at log level 1 (which is what make test runs at), and
> people bumped that up to even higher levels to get rid of the noise.
> >> However, I'm myself a bit confused at what log level to pick for what
> >> level of output I want to log. And of course if you just use the
> >> catch-all level 10, you do get a lot of stuff apart from the DNS server,
> >> which makes it hard to spot the correct output.
> > er, if you are confused what log level to pick, someone who helped to
> > write Samba, what hope do I have as just a mere user ;-)
> > Also saying that you do get a lot of stuff is a slight understatement.
> I'm interested in your proposed solution. How do I get more relevant
> debugging info to the average user while not printing non-relevant info,
> when the average user is interested in different output every time?
> >>
> >> Arguably even the log output given by the internal server isn't as
> >> detailed as the log output in bind.
> > No argument, using the standard log level gives you nothing from the
> > internal DNS server, whilst bind is pretty vocal.
> BIND is sort of a one-trick pony. It's pretty safe to assume that
> everybody who runs BIND cares about DNS and would like to see DNS stuff
> in the logs. I don't see the same happening for samba.

As part of the debug merge the debug classes stuff became common, and
available across the codebase.  This might be a good use case.

Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett                      
Authentication Developer, Samba Team 

More information about the samba-technical mailing list