[Samba] Windows XP and Samba 3.0.22 -- don't mix?

[Ryan Steele]

Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:37:05AM -0400, Ryan Steele wrote:
>   
>> I desperately need a resolution to this issue.  I've asked once (about a 
>> day or two ago), but I haven't heard anything back.  The only reason I 
>> press the issue is I may because without a quick resolution, I may be 
>> forced to switch over to AD (cry!).  I submitted a request via Bugzilla 
>> but I saw a slightly similar problem with 3.0.20a that still hasn't been 
>> resolved, so I thought this might be a quicker route?  Here's a synopsis:
>>     
>
> If you *have* to have a resolution on issues then you need to
> buy support from someone, or use a Linux distro that has support
> available and buy that.
>   
Well, my life doesn't depend on it, I really just want to support Samba 
and stick with it because I've never had problems before this and in 
general I really like the Samba suite. 
>> I navigate through Windows Explorer to My Network Places and so on until 
>> I get to the server.  I open up a folder on the server.  I execute the 
>> 'ps auxwww | grep mbd' and sure enough, there's the share.  The 
>> smbstatus command confirms this.  Now, I close out that Windows Explorer 
>> window I have open to the server.  However, a 'ps auxwww | grep mbd' 
>> shows that there is still a connection open to this folder.... an 
>> smbstatus confirms....  After a few minutes, the user for that pid 
>> changes to root, and the process just sits in there forever, sucking up 
>> 0.9% of memory.  This happens with EVERY share Windows opens, and when 
>> it gets in this state, I can't open any new shares.  I've tried using 
>> the "deadtime" option to kill these...no dice, they still hang around.  
>> In fact, the only thing that gets rid of them is a 'killall -9 smbd'.  
>>     
>
> There isn't a generic problem with Samba and XP, millions of clients
> are using it successfully (and I'm not saying that lightly). If the process
> seems stuck try attaching to it with gdb or strace and find out what
> it's doing. 
I'm glad to hear there isn't a generic problem.  As far as strace, it's 
a bit difficult in this situation; by the time I'd have the information 
I'd need, there would be tens of thousands of lines of superfluous 
information....making it near impossible to extrapolate the useful 
stuff.  It'd be like finding a needle in a haystack.  Also, I'm a 
competent coder, but not a great one...so stepping through it with gdb 
might not be the best solution for me.  I was hoping there might be a 
way to attack this problem without having to step through it with, say, gdb.

> Don't use kill -9, that can damage internal Samba databases.
>   
Is there a better way?  `/etc/init.d/samba stop` and `kill /pid/` don't 
work...the processes still hang around.
> If you don't know how to do these things then either learn to do so,
> or buy support from someone who can. Sorry to seem harsh but the 
> reality of such pleas is that it's easier to help someone who knows
> how to help themself.
>   
It does seem a bit harsh.  I fully support Samba and the wonderful 
effort and strides you guys are making...it really does show!  However, 
not all of the users/administrators are of equal experience, so we turn 
here for advice.  On your advice though, I'll figure out how to strace 
one of the processes generated by an XP client and include that in a 
follow-up to the mailing list, along with whatever I'm able to 
extrapolate from the data.  In my Bugzilla report, I included an excerpt 
from the log file that was generated by attempting to access share 
information from the server's command line at such a time when the Samba 
server was in an overwhelmed state, along with info from stdout.  The 
Bugzilla tracking number is #3832.
> Jeremy.
>   
Any thoughts?  Thanks!

Best Regards,
Ryan