2.2.2 Release incredibly broken?

[Robert Blayzor]

> That is a little radical. Currently the SAMBA_2_2 CVS Tree is
> being prepared for release as 2.2.3, and has fixes for (hopefully
> all) of the bugs the original poster and you are having problems
> with.
> 
> Please test it out and give us feedback ASAP if it doesn't fix
> things, as we're in the process of doing Q/A before final release.

I've CVS'ed to 2.2.3-PRE and all seems to be running at the moment.
Still a bit to early to tell how things will go.  Couple of notes:

1)  Still to early at this time to find a flood of oplock errors
followed by a signal 6 error.  I plan to run the server though a harsh
load test tomorrow.  This is normally where I see the domain controller
function just hang and then the clients go nuts because they lose domain
controller.

2)  The one or two clients that were blue screen crashing on bootup seem
to have been cured.  At least for the moment, other clients that had the
same problem have not reported their findings yet.

3)  Still getting logs full of:

[2002/01/07 15:58:00, 0] rpc_server/srv_netlog.c:api_net_sam_logon(208)
  api_net_sam_logon: Failed to marshall NET_R_SAM_LOGON.
[2002/01/07 15:58:00, 0] rpc_server/srv_pipe.c:api_rpcTNP(1204)
  api_rpcTNP: api_netlog_rpc: NET_SAMLOGON failed.
[2002/01/07 17:03:30, 0] rpc_server/srv_netlog.c:api_net_sam_logon(208)
  api_net_sam_logon: Failed to marshall NET_R_SAM_LOGON.
[2002/01/07 17:03:30, 0] rpc_server/srv_pipe.c:api_rpcTNP(1204)
  api_rpcTNP: api_netlog_rpc: NET_SAMLOGON failed.
[2002/01/07 17:07:38, 0] rpc_server/srv_netlog.c:api_net_sam_logon(208)
  api_net_sam_logon: Failed to marshall NET_R_SAM_LOGON.
[2002/01/07 17:07:38, 0] rpc_server/srv_pipe.c:api_rpcTNP(1204)
  api_rpcTNP: api_netlog_rpc: NET_SAMLOGON failed.
[2002/01/07 17:18:18, 0] rpc_server/srv_netlog.c:api_net_sam_logon(208)
  api_net_sam_logon: Failed to marshall NET_R_SAM_LOGON.
[2002/01/07 17:18:18, 0] rpc_server/srv_pipe.c:api_rpcTNP(1204)
  api_rpcTNP: api_netlog_rpc: NET_SAMLOGON failed.


4)  With 2.2.2 I noticed some SMB processes using up to 40MB of RAM, is
this right?


Is there anything in the works about this?  I know that it's M$'s way of
trying to trash Samba, but it's really annoying.

--
Robert Blayzor, BOFH
INOC, LLC
rblayzor at inoc.net

If a train station is where the train stops, what is a work station?