[Samba] Windows clients require reboot once a day in order to access mapped drives

[L.P.H. van Belle]

Hai Sonic, 


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Sonic [mailto:sonicsmith at gmail.com] 
> Verzonden: woensdag 1 mei 2019 14:51
> Aan: L.P.H. van Belle
> CC: samba at lists.samba.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Windows clients require reboot once a 
> day in order to access mapped drives
> 
> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:24 AM L.P.H. van Belle via samba
> <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> > You can set these also on the share.
> > Win7 and10
> >             client min protocol = SMB2
> >             client max protocol = SMB3
> > The one for the scanner,
> >             client min protocol = NT1
> >             client max protocol = SMB2
> >>>>
> > The first is a windows 7 pc. and the second a win10 PC.  
> connecting to a share configured with :
> >     smb encrypt = auto
> >     client min protocol = SMB2
> >     client max protocol = SMB3
> > the thirth is a Win XP pc, connecting to a separated share 
> configured with:
> >     client min protocol = NT1
> >     client max protocol = SMB2
> 
> Interesting, client min protocol and client max protocol are listed as
> Global parameters (G) in the smb.conf man page. 

> - Is it common to have Global parameters work properly in the Share (S) sections? 
That i dont know, but i do try these things out when needed. 
Some work some not. 

> - And what is the result if stated Global parameter used in both the Global section and Share sections? 
I havent check that in the test, but i do believe the share setting is overruling the global setting.
Because otherwise i would not have seen NT1 in my outputs. 

> - Is there a list of which Global parameters are valid in Share sections? 
Not that i know of. 

> - Are any Share labelled parameters valid in the Global section?
That i dont know, but i do try these things out when needed. 
Some work some not. 

> And just a pet peeve which I mentioned years ago - the parameter
> synonyms should be deprecated, too many times users use both, plus it
> would assist in the readable and support of the smb.conf file.
Yes, good point, cleanup more is good. 

Well, i was thinking the same as you did, but few days ago, Rowland noticed that this is not the case. 
And i also dont know everything.. I must follow in this case what Rowland is saying. 

The above questions are good questions. 
I suggest, wait and see what Rowland or another dev can say about this. 


Greetz, 

Louis