I've looked at the CentOS docs-list as well as the Wiki as I was interested in Samba.
On one CentOS box I've got 3.0.32 (the latest bug-fixed version from Samba.org) and on another I've got 3.0.28 (the latest from upstream). The docs look almost the same and the docs refer to security = share. However 3.0.32 comes with a blank smb.conf making it harder to get a secure server up and running.
Is there a plan for a quick and dirty guide on the Wiki for setting up Samba with secure settings as well as TDB rather than deprecated settings?
In tips and tricks there is http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/WindowsShares Without writing a book as someone suggested, a few one-liners could be put together in the wiki.
Spike
Spike Turner wrote:
I've looked at the CentOS docs-list as well as the Wiki as I was interested in Samba.
On one CentOS box I've got 3.0.32 (the latest bug-fixed version from Samba.org) and on another I've got 3.0.28 (the latest from upstream). The docs look almost the same and the docs refer to security = share. However 3.0.32 comes with a blank smb.conf making it harder to get a secure server up and running.
Is there a plan for a quick and dirty guide on the Wiki for setting up Samba with secure settings as well as TDB rather than deprecated settings?
FWIW (about what you paid), I've often used SWAT to setup my Samba initial configuration.
yum install samba-swat, then edit /etc/xinetd.d/swat and put a # in front of 'disable = yes', save this file, service xinetd reload, and then use a browser to connect to http://localhost:901 log on as root, and fill out the forms
(if you want to manage swat from a seperate workstation, # out the only_from line too, or add your LAN ip or cidrrange, seperated by a space example: only_from = 127.0.0.1 192.168.0.0/24 would allow localhost or anyone on the 192.168.0.0/24 network to access swat)
I know a lot of folks disparage swat, but its a lot easier than remembering all the obscure settings in the smb.conf files when you've got better things to do.
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:40 PM, John R Pierce pierce@hogranch.com wrote:
Spike Turner wrote:
I've looked at the CentOS docs-list as well as the Wiki as I was interested in Samba.
On one CentOS box I've got 3.0.32 (the latest bug-fixed version from Samba.org) and on another I've got 3.0.28 (the latest from upstream). The docs look almost the same and the docs refer to security = share. However 3.0.32 comes with a blank smb.conf making it harder to get a secure server up and running.
Is there a plan for a quick and dirty guide on the Wiki for setting up Samba with secure settings as well as TDB rather than deprecated settings?
FWIW (about what you paid), I've often used SWAT to setup my Samba initial configuration.
yum install samba-swat, then edit /etc/xinetd.d/swat and put a # in front of 'disable = yes', save this file, service xinetd reload, and then use a browser to connect to http://localhost:901 log on as root, and fill out the forms
(if you want to manage swat from a seperate workstation, # out the only_from line too, or add your LAN ip or cidrrange, seperated by a space example: only_from = 127.0.0.1 192.168.0.0/24 would allow localhost or anyone on the 192.168.0.0/24 network to access swat)
I know a lot of folks disparage swat, but its a lot easier than remembering all the obscure settings in the smb.conf files when you've got better things to do.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
You may want to look at a third party samba packager for better documentation such as: http://enterprisesamba.org/
Rob Townley wrote:
You may want to look at a third party samba packager for better documentation such as: http://enterprisesamba.org/
My 3.0.32 is from the enterprise samba and coincidentally the html charset problem (mentioned separately) is from viewing the enterprise docs.
Someone mentioned SWAT. I don't use SWAT or system-config-samba as I admin the server from the CLI. Also its easy to get up and running but the problem is not to get up and running. The following problems remain :-
1. The CentOS server with Enterprise Samba 3.0.32 is also the DNS server but "View Workgroup Computers" is slow from windows. Even after tweaking /etc/nsswitch and specifying the CentOS server as the browser master and wins server. I've googled and looked at people from other distros with the same problem but no joy here. I've turned off the computer browser on XP but no avail.
Spike.
John wrote:
Check out the tcp nodelay samba option in smb.conf.
I have the following in my smb.conf
# Most people will find that this option gives better performance. # See speed.txt and the manual pages for details socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
Actually it looks as if the problem with the slow browsing may not be Samba related since XP Pro and Win2K Pro clients browse the network very fast. It is XP Home that is slow. XP Home was purposefully "crippled" by MS so it lacks networking features in XP Pro and Win2k Pro.
XP Home was purposefully "crippled" by MS so it lacks networking features in XP Pro and Win2k Pro.
Yawn... Are you informed well enough to know how it was "crippled" as you say? I think not, it may not be a member of a Windows domain. That's it. It costs less. That's fair?
I wonder if you apply your analogy to RH? They have Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Big price diff there? Is that RH "crippling" their Linux?
Joseph L. Casale wrote:
XP Home was purposefully "crippled" by MS so it lacks networking features in XP Pro and Win2k Pro.
Yawn... Are you informed well enough to know how it was "crippled" as you say? I think not, it may not be a member of a Windows domain. That's it. It costs less. That's fair?
I wonder if you apply your analogy to RH? They have Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Big price diff there? Is that RH "crippling" their Linux?
XP Home don't have:
- The RDP server - Offline Folders - Dual CPU Support - Greater Access Control (shares, files & folders) - Multi-Language interface
Another annoyance is the lack of "address bar" in the Winblows Explorer. It's very handy to be able to type UNC name in address bar.
Guy Boisvert, ing. IngTegration inc.
2008/10/9 Guy Boisvert boisvert.guy@videotron.ca:
Joseph L. Casale wrote:
XP Home don't have:
- The RDP server
- Offline Folders
- Dual CPU Support
- Greater Access Control (shares, files & folders)
- Multi-Language interface
Another annoyance is the lack of "address bar" in the Winblows Explorer. It's very handy to be able to type UNC name in address bar.
It does have "address bar". At least my copy of Windows XP Home has it. Regarding Dual CPU Support - "Windows Task Manager" shows 2 separate CPU Usage Histories for the CPU, which is Core3 CPU T7200. It has hyperthreading or something.
Best regards. Alex
Alexander Georgiev wrote:
It does have "address bar". At least my copy of Windows XP Home has it. Regarding Dual CPU Support - "Windows Task Manager" shows 2 separate CPU Usage Histories for the CPU, which is Core3 CPU T7200. It has hyperthreading or something.
"Home" supports a single multicore CPU but not multiple sockets. "Professional/Business" editions support dual sockets (typically only found on high end workstations and of course servers). Its a totally arbitrary marketing distinction... Orignially, there was only going to be one version of XP at the higher price point (where NT and Win2000 Workstation already had been), but the market, primarily OEM, complained it was too expensive as an alternative to the cheaper win9X/ME system, so at the last minute they 'lobotomized' XP into a cheaper "Home" edition, primarily by disabling the file security dialogs, domain/Active Directory membership support, restricting to 1 socket instead of 2, and removing Remote Desktop Server.
Alexander Georgiev wrote:
2008/10/9 Guy Boisvert boisvert.guy@videotron.ca:
Joseph L. Casale wrote:
XP Home don't have:
- The RDP server
- Offline Folders
- Dual CPU Support
- Greater Access Control (shares, files & folders)
- Multi-Language interface
Another annoyance is the lack of "address bar" in the Winblows Explorer. It's very handy to be able to type UNC name in address bar.
It does have "address bar". At least my copy of Windows XP Home has it. Regarding Dual CPU Support - "Windows Task Manager" shows 2 separate CPU Usage Histories for the CPU, which is Core3 CPU T7200. It has hyperthreading or something.
Best regards. Alex
The list is from M$ "specs". It says "Dual CPU" (meaning dual socket), not "Dual core" which is a single socket CPU!
As for the address bar, it may have changed with service packs and updates, i dunno. The one i have here won't do that!
Regards,
Guy Boisvert, ing. IngTegration inc.
Guy Boisvert wrote on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:39:32 -0400:
The one i have here won't do that!
Then you just add it. Believe it or not but the Windows Explorer (at least in XP, it lost some of this in Vista) is much more customizable than Gnome or KDE.
Kai
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl maillists@conactive.com wrote:
Then you just add it. Believe it or not but the Windows Explorer (at least in XP, it lost some of this in Vista) is much more customizable than Gnome or KDE.
It has to be - it runs on a system that was cobbled together from stolen ideas and built one kludge on top of another with most of them never fixed to work properly. Pretty is not the same as good.
OTOH, Nautilus could be a LOT prettier....
Just my $0.02, which is worth less each passing day....
mhr
Mhr wrote on Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:43:36 -0700:
It has to be
Doesn't really matter why ;-)
Kai
Rob Townley wrote:
You may want to look at a third party samba packager for better documentation such as: http://enterprisesamba.org/
More than the 25MB(!) of documentation which are in the samba packages we release?
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
More than the 25MB(!) of documentation which are in the samba packages we release?
Yes the Enterprise Samba Docs are more than 28 Mb but are raw in that they refer to Samba 3.2.x as well as having links not working and charset specified in some files and unspecified in others. There are also countless examples but you have to figure out for yourself what applies to 3.0.32 and what does not.
Unless you have a specific problem covered by the bug fixes in 3.0.29 to 3.0.32 in my opinion, I would say stick with the version shipped by CentOS. The smb.conf shipped by CentOS is also a good working start as compared to a blank smb.conf and a tonne of examples in 3.0.32
Spike
-
Alexander Georgiev -
Guy Boisvert -
John -
John R Pierce -
Joseph L. Casale -
Kai Schaetzl -
MHR -
Ralph Angenendt -
Rob Townley -
Spike Turner