[Samba] Samba in a Win2000 / NT Enterprise

[Noel Kelly (VPN)]

We actually had this discussion previously Jeremy.  Interestingly 2.2.3a was
a huge improvement over 2.2.2 for us with zero alterations to the 2.2.20
kernel (acl patched).  I turned off oplocks globally from the beginning and
before Friday it was looking like plain sailing, with the only hiccup being
winbindd having to be restarted every couple of hours.  It was working so
well that I replicated the build onto the second Samba server we now run.

I have actually had a 2.4 machine running 2.2.3a all today and winbindd has
not died once even with a script interrogating it continously.  The winbindd
error does not seem to be load related - it dies as frequently over the
weekend as during work hours.

I think I will retro the kernel back to 2.2.19 and see if that is more
stable otherwise it is looking like a move to 2.4.

The only other spanner in the works could be the ACL patches from
bestbits.at - maybe these are causing some interference with the base
filesystem handling ?

Noel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Allison" <jra at samba.org>
To: "Noel Kelly (VPN)" <nkelly at tarsus.co.uk>
Cc: "Blanchard, Michael" <MBlanchard at grandaire.com>; <samba at lists.samba.org>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Samba in a Win2000 / NT Enterprise


> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 07:10:13PM -0000, Noel Kelly (VPN) wrote:
> > Michael,
> >
> > Are you running a 2.4 kernel ?  I am have had numerous problems with
> > winbindd dying under 2.2.20.  Also, on Friday I had two separate
incidents
> > of unkillable smbd processes left on the our Samba 2.2.3a servers after
the
> > Win2000 clients crashed.  These are nasty as they prevent the disk being
> > unmounted and one is left with no option but to reboot and let fsck do
its
> > stuff on remount.  Having to reboot both our main servers on Friday
> > afternoon in these circumstances is not impressing the hoi poloi.
> >
> > I was rather hoping these unkillables had gone away with 2.2.3a as they
were
> > so constant in 2.2.2 that they almost scuttled the whole Samba
migration.
> > Perhaps the 2.4 kernel's improved file system management might smooth
these
> > over.
>
> Unkillable processes are a *kernel* problem, not a Samba one.
>
> Nothing we do should affect the kernel this badly - my only
> guess would be kernel oplock code - try turning this option
> off and see if it makes the problem go away.
>
> Jeremy.
>