Samba 2.06 Released 102
LazLong wrote to let us know that Samba [?] 2.06 has been released. A whole slew of bug fixes, as well as some new features. The technical documentation is available, or just go all out and grab the tarball.
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek
now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:2)
Using Samba from O'Reilly open sourced (Score:1)
George
Hmmm. (Score:4)
Use the mirrors.... (Score:5)
All we need now... (Score:4)
So in
that's what I would really like.
---
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
^.
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:3)
Not entirely sure about that - they have fixed quite a few bugs, niggles and security issues, but I don't see much if anything that would make it faster. In any case, if the test showed that NT was still faster than Samba, it would be dismissed by the linux community as biased, due to NT being optimised for Win95 and not NT workstation, or just wrong. If it showed NT slower than Samba, then Microsoft would dismiss it for almost the same reasons
--
Mirror (Score:1)
Lando
Only one complaint (Score:1)
Or maybe not. I could be wrong. Comments?
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
Once you mount a drive from another machine it's as simple as cd
Done..
Number 1 change ... (Score:4)
Kudos to the Samba team for listening to and executing the ideas of its users.
MacOS X support? (Score:1)
Large dir Lookup bug fixed ! (Score:1)
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
smbmount
cd
I dont want to mount every share, but I want to mount the whole network at once, and have it update dynamically as new servers/share's become available. just like the network neighbourhood works in windows.
---
Can it send userlist to Win9x 4 user level sharing (Score:1)
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
Sorry misread your comments. Shouldn't be too hard to do though. Now that mount is working, ie no longer smbmount, I would think that it would be fairly easy. Just live nfs has virtual connections that kick off when they are used.
Lando
Packaging (Score:1)
--
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 (Score:1)
When I got the RPM it didn't work properly, saying that it had an unresolved symbol in libreadline.
I made myself an RPM from the SRPM and it works properly now.
Re:Packaging (Score:2)
It is only difficult for the browsing-impaired unwashed masses. On the Samba website, you have the option of downloading both RedHat and Debian packages for the new samba release.
They're on the Samba FTP site, too. Gee.
Re:Packaging (Score:1)
Re:Packaging (Score:1)
Re:Mirror (Score:1)
Got a little excited. I've been waiting for this release. And just threw the file on one of my sites. I'll leave it up until the feeding frenzy is over.
ftp://www.rtsg.com/pub/samba-2.0.6.tar.gz [rtsg.com]
Lando
How does 'mount' work now? (Score:1)
Does anyone have any ideas how to get this to work correctly?
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
I am connected to a samba network with more than 1500 computers which all contain a few shares.
that would mean mounting thousands of shares.
---
Re:Packaging (Score:1)
Hmm. RPMs are wonderful things - precompiled, ready-to-run executables in a container that allows the end-user to install it simply. Tarballs, by contrast, are just compressed blocks of source with a make script and are much harder to use
That said, tarballs were around long before RPMS, and there are still some distros out there that can't support RPM - but there aren't any that can't do tarball, plus the commercial Unixen (like HP) use a different system again. It is much easier to do it ONCE as a tarball, than five or six different ways for five or six different systems.
If I later get the packaged release (usually a few weeks later), then I gotta do that all over again! Man... it's times like these I wish linux was a little more standardized for some things. Packaging should not be this difficult.
I suspect at some point RPM will become the default - but for the moment, tarball is easier for the writers (if not the users). But that said, why are you installing the RPM over the top? once you get the tarball up and running, it must be easier to leave it than to de-install and re-install just so to have the pretty packet version rather than the homespun.... although I agree it makes life easier in the long run if you upgrade with another RH CD.
--
Re:Only one complaint (Score:4)
> It would be nice to see a single task,
> multithreaded model. That would really kick ass
> IMHO.
Actually, no, I'm afraid it would suck
Cheers,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:2)
As it should be. One of the reasons I like Open Source Software is that the programmers generally concentrate on real improvements, not arbitrary benchmarks.
Re:Use the mirrors.... (Score:1)
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
As it should be. One of the reasons I like Open Source Software is that the programmers generally concentrate on real improvements, not arbitrary benchmarks.
Hmm. I
--
Three Cheers for Samba! (Score:1)
Samba is Great!
Daily we transfer many gigabytes of mission critical data to our unix systems using Samba.
Two years and many terrabytes later we have not lost of single bit.
We've experimented with alternatives, such as:
FTP (fast, but users hate it)
NFS clients on PCs (pain to setup and maintain plus $$$ per client)
Syntax (worst of the bunch, pain to set up, pain to administer and expensive)
but nothing matches samba for speed, ease of instalation, maintainability, stability and interoperability with Windows95 and NT.
If Bill was really serious about hurting nix, he would import those hard coding Ausies and put them to work on windows 3000.
Speaking of windows, how well does Samba work with Windows 2000 and all that silly active directory garbage????? Right now Samba barely does domains, and domains will be going the way of the dodo bird in a year or two.
Instead of chasing proprietary MS interfaces such as PDC/BDC and active directory, perhaps "the comunity" should come up with an alternative, open directory service.
Yikes, I'm rambling. Back on track:
Three Cheers for Samba!
Re:Packaging (Score:2)
It is really nice having a nice rpmized version installed because you don't have to remember things like what files make up the program.
It would be nice if it would work with Frontpage. (Score:1)
I'd like to know when Samba will really support ACLs. I wouldn't care if it faked them using DBM files, if it used Solaris native ACLs, strange
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
Re:How does 'mount' work now? (Score:2)
mount -t smbfs -o username=foo,password=bar //foo/test /data/test
which seems to work better then the previous version... Though i do notice a delay now between when the comand completes and when the file system is actually mounted..
Re:Samba Question??? (OT?) (Score:1)
Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 (Score:1)
I'm not exactly sure how to use SRPMS so I guess I'll wait for the Mandrake RPM...
Re:Can it send userlist to Win9x 4 user level shar (Score:1)
SMB Network Password Expirations (Score:2)
Re:Only one complaint (Score:1)
Are you going to be in the New York/North-Eastern area anytime soon??? Would you like to talk at my college?
Thanks,
Steven Rostedt
Re:Identity Crisis...(OFFTOPIC) (Score:1)
Plus, it seems that Rob thinks it's cool, so it gets mentioned. That's how the site got started, and how it is run today.
Live with it.
Re:Mandrake, SAMBA, and Win98 clients (Score:1)
Worked with Mandrake 6.1 with shipped kernel and custom kernel
(and yes, the client is a win98 box)
What to do with a T1... (Score:1)
Well let's see...
Multiple Linux Distrobution mirror (like I'm doing with 4 PPC distros and a T3)
Samba mirror
Kernel.org mirror
HOWTO site
Public Quake server!!
or
mirror all of your favorite **Pron** sites!
Re:Identity Crisis... (Score:1)
Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 (Score:1)
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
C:\>CD \\SERVER1\SHARE1
'\\SERVER1\SHARE1' is an invalid current directory path. UNC paths are not supported.
--
Re: Identity Crisis. I thought we got over this. (Score:1)
Somebody made this complaint last time a software update was posted on Slashdot, and it bugged me. And lo and behold, somebody did it again, and it still bugs me. Here's the gist of what I told the last guy.
Slashdot is News, so says the title.gif.
Coming from the other side, Freshmeat currently has exactly one post that isn't a software update that is also on Slashdot, the XMMS Plugin Contest.
No matter how you look at it, that's a very small margin, one I think is forgivable by even the harshest critic. I mean, it's not like there are categorical criteria to Slashdot submissions. If we can talk about national-security threatening Furbys, then why can't we mention a new version of an ubercool software suite?
Your options are simple. Continue reading Slashdot and cope with the occasional version update, continue reading Slashdot and scream in agony at the occasional version update, stop reading Slashdot, or download the source code and make your own site completely devoid of such daemon spawn.
Re:It works for only so long (Score:1)
Re:Packaging (Score:1)
Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 (Score:1)
I'll tell you what is simple.
./configure; make; make install
and if
(you should see how easy adding stuff is in freebsd)
Re:Only one complaint (Score:1)
I guess the solution to that would be to implement Samba as a kernel module. Then all of the routines that give you UNIX user security are available and well tested.
Well, get on with it! ;-)
Re: Identity Crisis. I thought we got over this. (Score:1)
Debian package? (Score:1)
Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 (Score:1)
Having an RPM installed is easy to move around. If I would use a make install script I would have problems later tracking down all the files to either delete/change or update.
Autofs works! Yippee! (Score:1)
Re:Packaging (Score:1)
rpm --tarbuild [tarball]
to create a
Hope this helps.
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
# make smbwrapper
# cp bin/smbsh bin/smbwrapper.so
$ smbsh
Username: spruce
Password:
$ ls
total 0
0
0
0 ACCOUNTS/
0 ACADEMY/
0 ACOLYTE/
Very cool.
Re:It would be nice if it would work with Frontpag (Score:1)
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:Packaging (Score:1)
Tarball is the packaging format usable by anyone running a *nix platform.
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
Unfortunately it costs a lot of money. Free student licenses are available however. I don't know if smbmount does this as I don't use linux.
----------
But not on glibc2.1 (Score:1)
Compiling smbwrapper/smbw.c with -fpic
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1429: warning: `struct stat64' declared inside parameter list
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1429: warning: its scope is only this definition or declaration, which is probably not what you want.
smbwrapper/smbw.c: In function `stat64_convert':
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1431: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1432: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1433: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1434: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1435: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1436: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1437: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1438: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1439: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1440: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1441: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1442: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1443: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c: At top level:
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1448: warning: `struct dirent64' declared inside parameter list
smbwrapper/smbw.c: In function `dirent64_convert':
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1450: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1451: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1452: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
smbwrapper/smbw.c:1453: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
make: *** [smbwrapper/smbw.po] Error 1
Re:All we need now... (Score:1)
C'mon boy, you've installed X, you can handle this.
No, really, I think it would be easy to make a network neighbourhood type client that runs under Samba. It would have to be a separate system run by the server, but it is true, that mountin 1500 computers is not very wise. The client could check the server's dynamically updated list of computers, display them in a Windows sytle view (even with the cute computer icon!) and mount them when you want to access them.
I ain't coding it because I know jack about unix programming, though, and I have a long time to go before I am competent to be doing projects like that.
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
That wouldn't speed up samba drasticly, since that is not where the bottlenecks are. I imagine filename searching (case insensitive), name mangling, and oplocks are where the worse bottlenecks are.
Password authentication is rarely ever a bottleneck
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
1.Purely to match a benchmark that has no relationship to reality and
2.that you don't sacrifice functionality, security or reliability just to eke out that extra half-milisec.
Note that a great many benchmarks are likely to come under catagory one. It's far easier to automate something which is unrealistic than something which does have some relationship with the way things are accessed by people.
Re:Only one complaint (Score:1)
You are trying to apply NT biased issues about threads vs processes to unix. Where they do not apply. NT tends to use threads extensivly because process creation is very expensive under that OS.
Also handling of multiple users gets even more complicated than it is already (It can be complicated now becuase of the MS client's ability to use a single TCP connection for multiple users.)
Re:Can it send userlist to Win9x 4 user level shar (Score:1)
Note that this is only for registry wizards. Don't even think of showing this to the average end user
Re:Packaging (Score:1)
That's becuase the tarball format is useable by the vast majority of people.
My problem is that alot of stuff under RH6 and other distros use RPM, or dpkg, or other such utilities.
Not everyone is using RH6 (or for that matter Linux). Even if they were maybe they want different settings from those Red Hat (or whoever) prefer.
That makes life difficult for me, because then I need to uninstall the old package (making sure to backup the config files) and then install the tar. If I later get the packaged release (usually a few weeks later), then I gotta do that all over again!
If you have the tarball what's stopping you building your own RPM? Also why do you need to install the program twice? (Especially when the publically available RPM is likely to have been compiled without CPU optimisation.)
Re:why would you want the RPM? (Score:1)
Unlikely in the case of an RPM put together by the Samba team and on the main FTP site. More likely becuase the SSL support is "experimental".
Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 (Score:1)
You probably want "./configure --help |less" in practice. This will work for any program supporting the GNU config program on various operating systems.
Re:MacOS X support? (Score:1)
The header files that come with OSX server are seriously f**ked.
F**ked in what way? Samba 2.0.6 compiles cleanly... the only issue is that MacOS X Server isn't recognized by the config.guess and the config.sub as distributed in Samba. That's easily remedied, especially by someone of your prowess by copying the ones that Apple supplies in /usr/libexec.
Re:Who cares (Score:1)
Why pay for a BSD clone when you could just run BSD?
You could do some of your own research. See Apple's Mac OS X Server Product Page [apple.com]. Now, you might not want to run it, but you should be able to see why some other people might want to run it. Just in case, here are some keywords:
These are all above and beyond the fact that it has a Mach kernel with BSD 4.4isms and for the most part plays nicely with other UNIX variants.
Re:MacOS X support? (Score:1)
As soon as I do some more testing, I'll get a Mac OS X Server .pkg package up on next-ftp.peak.org [peak.org]. My Samba 2.0.4b [peak.org] and 2.0.5a [peak.org] packages are already up there, including instructions for compiling it yourself.
Another place to look for software for Mac OS X Server is Stepwise's Softrak [stepwise.com] service.
If you are in a hurry, the just copy the config.guess and the config.sub from /usr/libexec to replace the ones given in the Samba distribution. Configuring the smb.conf and other Samba issues are pretty much the same as other platforms.
Re:How does 'mount' work now? (Score:1)
Nov 12 11:23:02 helsinki automount[10387]: attempting to mount entry
Nov 12 11:23:02 helsinki automount[10392]: cannot find mount method for filesystem smbfs
My automount line looks like this:
c -rw,fstype=smbfs,user=administrator,password='del
Thanks for your help and all the wonderful Samba work!
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
That wouldn't speed up samba drasticly, since that is not where the bottlenecks are. I imagine filename searching (case insensitive), name mangling, and oplocks are where the worse bottlenecks are.
Yes, I know - it was meant as a humourous statement, giving a patch everyone could see as being a *bad thing*. If I had any
--
Re:now we should have new NT vs. Linux Benchmarks (Score:1)
That wouldn't speed up samba drasticly, since that is not where the bottlenecks are. I imagine filename searching (case insensitive), name mangling, and oplocks are where the worse bottlenecks are.
Yes, I know - it was meant as a humourous statement, giving a patch everyone could see as being a *bad thing*. If I had any
--
Re:I had problems with the RPM for Rh 6.0/6.1 (Score:1)