SAMBA digest 1371
Roeland M.J. Meyer
rmeyer at mhsc.com
Thu Jul 31 21:27:02 GMT 1997
This is what I told Bill. Since I've seen other commentary on this, I
thought that others might find it useful as well. Bill says that he's going
to follow this course.
>Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:08:53 -0700
>To: billjr at penny.com
>From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer at mhsc.com>
>Subject: Re: SAMBA digest 1371
>In-Reply-To: <9707301218.aa07181 at penny.com>
>At 12:02 PM 7/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>I've installed Samba ("latest") on SCO's openserver 5 with a WIN'95 hanging
>>off of it as a client.
>>I can run every test in DIAGNOSI.txt except for number 2. That is, the
>>box can not ping the SCO box within a reasonable amount of time.
>>(SCO can ping the WIN'95 box fine). For the longest time I thought the
>>box couldn't ping the SCO box but I discovered that after about 3 minutes it
>>starts pinging fine. Odd? If I ping from the WIN'95 box using the IP address
>>of the SCO box then all is fine. It will not resolve the domain name of the
>>SCO box in under 3 minutes.
>This is a very long DNS timeout.
>>The SCO box uses /etc/hosts and /etc/resolv.conf for domain name resolution
>>and the WIN'95 box points to the SCO box as the DNS. Do I actually have
>>up DNS/BIND on the SCO box or can Samba use the /etc/hosts setup as the text
>>file appears to indicate?
>Personally, I can see no reason why any UNIX host can not be a secondary
DNS server. It sure speeds up DNS lookups. I setup every UNIX box as
secondary to their home domain. If this box serves a workgroup then have
all its clients refer to it as their local DNS and have the true Primary
DNS as a secondary, or tertiary listing on the client. If this all happens
on a sub-net then it'll also help keep the workgroup's DNS traffic off the
back-bone. Only UNIX hosts would be doing recursive searches outside of the
sub-net that way, not PC workstations, unless local DNS dies of course.
Thus, substantially reducing backbone traffic and increasing DNS response
times in measurable amounts.
>DNS is trivial to setup for secondary name services. The named.boot is, at
most, six real lines. Compiling the named program is also trivial.
Admitedtly, the dox are a little obscure, but this is UNIX at it's best
>If you have much more than two UNIX hosts, I wouldn't recommend a HOSTS
file, too much work, especially if you have a largish number of
workstations (more than 2) to support.
>BTW, it doesn't look like a Samba problem. <grin>
Roeland M.J. Meyer (RM993)
e-mail: rmeyer at mhsc.com
web pages: http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
More information about the samba