[Samba] Sorry for all the messages, I'm just trying to get a
few answers here
roamdad at sonic.net
Sat Jul 8 05:51:22 GMT 2006
Craig White wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:10 -0700, Doug VanLeuven wrote:
>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, then point samba at itself
>> (I've been using windows servers for WINS)
>> wins server = 127.0.0.1
> you're wrong - wins support = yes is sufficient
Thanks for the correction.
>> PS - You could have migrated your server with just about an identical
>> configuration to the 2.2 one and had just about identical characteristics.
> One of the dangers of a mail list is getting wildly different answers
> based upon people's recollection of documentation that has continually
> evolved/improved and thus in many respects, answers that deter someone
> from checking the smb.conf man page or the official how-to or even the
> simplified by example is likely counter-productive.
I'm not sure if you're dumping on me now or not.
Even samba 2 required WINS to function across subnets.
FWIW, if what was said is true and it worked in samba 2, then either:
1. samba 2 was working on one subnet, and it was migrated to samba3
at the same time the network was expanded.
2. samba 2 was working with enough addresses in lmhosts files to
allow basic connectivity from windows clients.
Either way, it was probably a stand-alone workstation.
I think it's accurate to say samba 3 can be configured to be a
stand-alone workstation and that the configuration files would
be very similar. Then & now.
> One of the things that became apparent to me as I switched from Samba
> 2.2.x to Samba 3.0.x was that even though many of the directives seemed
> to stay the same, their meaning changed enough to force you to rethink
> the configuration - which I guess is the main point of upgrading/reading
> the documentation. The fact that the documentation covers the situation
> of upgrading from Samba 2 to Samba 3 seems to re-enforce the notion that
> the documentation is the place to start and if/when things aren't
> working as expected, then post up but it seems certain that if you
> follow the documentation, most things are going to work without much
I agree completely. But if one didn't really want any of the newer
functionality, one could emulate the older methods easier, perhaps, than
assimilating the newer concepts. Ergo the PS. Maybe I should have said
if one has an insufficient amount of time and willingness to study the
documentation available for samba as a PDC, perhaps one should scale
down one's goals to a more realistically achievable workgroup member.
You know, given the time constraints and motivational factors :-)
> When you get someone that lacks a commitment to the configuration that
> they desire to achieve and then it appears that a combination of 1) not
> understanding Windows Networking technology, 2) not digesting the
> documentation, 3) sheer frustration evidenced by massive changes to
> smb.conf file, that all are working against the administrator and then
> it would seem the best course of action is to suggest to this
> administrator that he review the documentation.
I'll second that.
> In this particular instance, the OP wants to stop logging errors about
> WINS server and when I tell the OP that he should put 'wins support =
> yes' in his smb.conf and that all goes away, he says "I'm not using a
> WINS server and I don't need a WINS server". That's when I knew it was
> time to remove myself from help mode and suggest that OP rely upon
If you gave a poll, I'm sure you'd find lots of goodwill from people
you've helped in the past.
I just thought I'd try from a different (dangerous) perspective ;-).
More information about the samba