[Samba] Samba kills network.

[Roots]

Tom Peters wrote:
> At 03:04 PM 4/5/2007 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 04:15:33PM -0500, Tom Peters wrote:
>> >
>> > I have this problem all the time. Samba for me will cause the "The
>> > specified network name no longer exists" (that's how it's worded 
>> for me,
>> > not "available") and copy a zero-length file to the destination drive.
>> >
>> > Reads from a Samba share are never any problem for me.
>> >
>> > If you immediately retry the operation, and immediately say "Y" to
>> > overwrite it, it will succeed.
>> >
>> > If you do the above for the first in a series of files to be copied 
>> to a
>> > Samba share, it will copy all the rest of them sucessfully.
>> >
>> > The other thing that gives this error away is the "getpeername
>> > failed...  ...transport endpoint not connected. "
>> >
>> > I thought I had this fixed, but after months, it has recurred. The 
>> fix I
>> > tried was this (in smb.conf):
>> > smb ports = 139
>> >
>> > The explanation I got was that Windows try to connect to a server over
>> > ports 443 and 139 nearly simultaneously, then use whichever one 
>> responds
>> > first. Samba replies to both, and it might be that Windows has already
>> > decided which it's going to use, and interprets the double reply as a
>> > failure.
>> >
>> > Use sendfile = no has also been suggested to me.
>> >
>> > Frankly, this is embarrassing, and has kept me from pushing Samba 
>> harder.
>> > When I ask about it, nobody seems to have a real answer.
>>
>> Easy enough to fix. Add :
>>
>> smb ports = 445
>>
>> to the [global] section of your smb.conf. Pre-Windows 2000 clients
>> won't be able to connect though.
>
> I tried that. Used 445, not 443 (oops). Did a load/unload of smbd. No 
> change. Changed it to 139. Worked better, for a few months. Went back 
> to old behavior, which is a lot like having no "smb ports =" in my 
> conf file at all.
>
Confirmed for me also add "smb ports = 445" to config file does not help.

Tim