[Samba] Re: cifs problems
georgehe2007 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 10 15:02:35 GMT 2008
yes, it is strange. exactly the same setting worked fine before with older
version samba and linux kernel (on my client, server was not toucged so it's
running a much older version).
I'm not sure whether it's samba or the kernel that breaks my stuff.
and I am not able to roll back to an older version samba because of all
those dependency issues.
On 10/10/08, Mike Gallamore <mike at mpi-cbg.de> wrote:
> Strange, that seems to be all that my predecessor to get ours to work at
> my work. I'm not sure if your set up is the same, but our fileserver is
> aware of every user in the institute (we do biology research). I could see
> touch maybe not knowing how to work when the local user and remote user
> aren't identical (same UID, and groups settings) but that is just a guess.
> Here is the global part of our configuration file, we are running 3.2.2 on a
> Solaris 10 system:
> workgroup = MPI-CBG
> netbios name = Fileserver
> wins support = yes
> security = user
> log level = 0
> log file = /var/adm/samba/log.smbd
> inherit permissions = yes
> load printers = no
> printing = bsd
> printcap name = /dev/null
> disable spoolss = yes
> deadtime = 5
> getwd cache = yes
> oplocks = yes
> socket options = TCP_NODELAY IPTOS_LOWDELAY
> smb passwd file = /etc/samba/smbpasswd
> max disk size=2000000
> guest ok = no
> encrypt passwords = yes
> mangling method = hash
> mangled names = no
> ; make file deletions more simple
> delete veto files = yes
> delete readonly = yes
> follow symlinks = yes
> wide links = yes
> unix extensions = no
> The only bit I thought had anything to do with simlinks is the last three
> lines. wide links is supposed to tell Samba not to check to see if the
> target of a link is in a share as well, it is recommended to be set to yes
> http://tldp.org/LDP/solrhe/Securing-Optimizing-Linux-RH-Edition-v1.3/chap29sec287.html because
> it saves 6 system calls so has a pretty big performance benefit. Anyways,
> you might see something that I don't.
> On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:58 PM, George He wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>> Thanks for the help, but neither of these works for me.
>> After I added the 2 lines in smb.conf, both touch and ln -s behave the
>> Besides, I lost all permissions on another client machine (redhat EL4)
>> that mounted the data share using the same way I described earlier (it
>> worked fine and after I remove the 2 lines, it works fine again).
>> Any other ideas?
More information about the samba