[Samba] Error was Transport endpoint is not connected

Thu Oct 21 05:13:57 MDT 2010

Inactivity timeout either on the NAS or somewhere else on the network?  If the network connectivity is interrupted, that would break the backup and give a genuine "transport endpoint" error.  

Does changing the time of the job make any difference?

Moray.
"To err is human.  To purr, feline"

Gaiseric Vandal wrote:
>The following may help "explain" the error:
>
>http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba_Myths
>
>
>So if you copy the file it is OK, but if the backup job runs an
>integrity check first it fails?  What is involved in the integrity
>check?  Is it somehow opening a connection to the server before starting
>the integrity check?
>
>
>On 10/19/2010 03:05 AM, robert.gehr wrote:
>> I tried it with "smb ports 139" to no avail. Same problem.
>> The backup job takes that long because the windows box first runs an
>> integrity check. If I just copy the file manually it takes a couple of
>> minutes. As already mentioned the other samba server 3.4.7 works without
>> any problems.
>>
>> What does that error message actually mean? Does it mean a network error
>> has occurred, the server has run into a timeout, the server can no
>> longer resolve the name of the client or what?
>>
>> Ideas are welcome.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 14:57 +0200, Gaiseric Vandal wrote:
>>
>>> Did you try changing smb.conf on the NAS to be port 139 only?
>>>
>>> Also, it seems that 55 GB should not take one hour to copy (55 GBytes
>is
>>> 440 Gbit, and at 1 Gbit/sec  and 60 secs / min, the transfer sohuld
>take
>>> about minutes-  at least in theory.)
>>>
>>> I am guessing it is dropping because it tries to reestablish a
>>> connection part way through the transfer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/15/2010 07:12 AM, robert.gehr wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice try. The backup fails exactly the moment the message appears in
>the
>>>> log. So I would say it is something to worry about.
>>>>
>>>> Has really no one any ideas why this all of a sudden comes up.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any hints
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 08:41 +0200, Daniel Müller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This message only says: I established to one of the ports 139 or 445
>>>>> and dropped the other.
>>>>> It is nothing to trouble about.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>> EDV Daniel Mller
>>>>>
>>>>> Leitung EDV
>>>>> Tropenklinik Paul-Lechler-Krankenhaus
>>>>> Paul-Lechler-Str. 24
>>>>> 72076 Tbingen
>>>>>
>>>>> Tel.: 07071/206-463, Fax: 07071/206-499
>>>>> eMail: mueller at tropenklinik.de
>>>>> Internet: www.tropenklinik.de
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>> Von: samba-bounces at lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-
>bounces at lists.samba.org] Im
>>>>> Auftrag von Gaiseric Vandal
>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 11. Oktober 2010 16:48
>>>>> An: samba at lists.samba.org
>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Samba] Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
>>>>>
>>>>> By default samba listens on two TCP ports-  445 and 139.  You can
>>>>> specify this in smb.conf
>>>>>
>>>>>            smb ports = 445 139
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 445 is the newer smb  over tcp.    139 is the older smb over netbios
>>>>> over tcp/ip.       445 was for Windows 2000 and newer clients..  I am
>>>>> not sure why samba enables 445 by default since as far as I know it
>does
>>>>> not support smb-over-tcp (without the NBT/netbios over tcp stuff.)
>If
>>>>> you  set "smb ports = 139" in your smb.conf you should see endpoint
>>>>> messages disappear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think what happens is Win 2000 (and newer)  clients will initially
>try
>>>>> to connect on port 445, find it isn't really compatible, and then
>"dump
>>>>> down" to NBT on port 139.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your NAS may be occasionally connecting on port 139 without
>problems
>>>>> and occasionally connecting on port 445, and which point it fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> OR-  the "endpoint" errors may be completely unrelated, but you just
>>>>> don't look for when when the NAS is working.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the NAS part of the domain?  Is it a windows or linux/samba based
>device?
>>>>>
>>>>> My samba server is a PDC.  XP clients in the domain connect with no
>>>>> problems regardless of  if smb ports is 139 only or 139 + 445.
>XP/Win7
>>>>> clients NOT in the domain can't connect to shares if 445 is disabled,
>>>>> which indicates they are connecting to 445 1st.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2010 08:57 AM, robert.gehr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello All
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to back up a Mssql database (about 55GB) to a samba share
>without
>>>>>> any problems. The samba server "Server-A" was running version 3.4.7
>>>>>> We just got one of those "Netgear ReadyNas3200" things and I tried
>to
>>>>>> backup up to a share there which sometimes works and sometimes not
>in
>>>>>> wich case I get the following error:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------snip---------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [2010/10/08 21:32:26.937834,  0]
>>>>>> lib/util_sock.c:474(read_fd_with_timeout)
>>>>>> [2010/10/08 21:32:26.966404,  0]
>>>>>> lib/util_sock.c:1432(get_peer_addr_internal)
>>>>>>      getpeername failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not
>connected
>>>>>>      read_fd_with_timeout: client 0.0.0.0 read error = Connection
>reset by
>>>>>> peer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------snap-----------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The samba version on the ReadyNas is 3.5.4
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the windows side nothing has changed apart form the destination
>to
>>>>>> the new share. The ReadyNas performs pretty well and I do not get
>any
>>>>>> network errors or otherwise. To rule out some network problem I
>exported
>>>>>> a nfs share on the ReadyNas which I mounted on "Server-A", created a
>>>>>> share on "Server-A" that points to the nfs-mount and ran a backup.
>No
>>>>>> problems and no errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any ideas which buttons to push in order to get a reliable backup
>going
>>>>>> again? From what I read this usually points to a problem on the
>client
>>>>>> side but nothing has changed there. I could of course use the
>>>>>> "Server-A:smb->nfs-mount:ReadyNas" solution but this is not what I
>want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob