Hello forum. I am in the process of transitioning from a very simple
Samba configuration to IBM's PC Fast Connect and I was wondering if
anyone had any gotchas, wisdom, hard won experiences with the product
they could share. As I said, very flat config currently with just file
shares out to a mixed population of about 300 Win98, Win2K and WinXP
machines.

emebohw@netscape.net (sumGirl) wrote in message news:<a5e13cff.0405270430.7d6ce716@posting.google. com>...
> Hello forum. I am in the process of transitioning from a very simple
> Samba configuration to IBM's PC Fast Connect

My biggest issue with Fast Connect is it's lack of share level
permissions. Fast Connect is not too far from Windows 95 in this
respect. You either have read only or full access shares with nothing
in between. Unlike samba and Windows NT/2K/XP/2K3. With Fast Connect,
if your dealing with more than one user you must rely on group and
everyone permissions, that is unless your able to use ACL's, but that
has its own set of issues.

For performance set "oplockfiles = yes" and for XP to work properly
set "dosattrmapping = 0" and finally set "umask = 002" so your can
take advantage of group permissions.

There truly isn't much else. Fast Connect is not nearly has
sophisticated as Samba.

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to make a switch? After all
,Samba is free Fast Connect is not, Samba has better online support
and documentation as well as bugs get fixed unlike Fast Connect and
you have complete access to the source code. What's not to like.

I was wondering if anyone would ask me why...I actually got flamed in
antoher forum over it. Its really just a question of support, because
after every major OS upgrade we seem to run into quirky Samba
behavior. After our upgrade to 5.2, Samba seems to drop shares for no
reason from time to time and we decided we had finally had enough. No
one on our network services staff wants to support/learn/troubleshoot
Samba (bunch of unix hating MS guys) and so this way we can lean on
IBM for support.

On 1 Jun 2004 07:03:55 -0700, emebohw@netscape.net (sumGirl) wrote:

>I was wondering if anyone would ask me why...I actually got flamed in
>antoher forum over it. Its really just a question of support, because
>after every major OS upgrade we seem to run into quirky Samba
>behavior. After our upgrade to 5.2, Samba seems to drop shares for no
>reason from time to time and we decided we had finally had enough. No
>one on our network services staff wants to support/learn/troubleshoot
>Samba (bunch of unix hating MS guys) and so this way we can lean on
>IBM for support.

sounds like you need new staff.

ashelley@inlandkwpp.com wrote in message news:<sl9pb05h9jg3r1ieu014bk7bmhmn0avu92@4ax.com>. ..
> On 1 Jun 2004 07:03:55 -0700, emebohw@netscape.net (sumGirl) wrote:
>
> >I was wondering if anyone would ask me why...I actually got flamed in
> >antoher forum over it. Its really just a question of support, because
> >after every major OS upgrade we seem to run into quirky Samba
> >behavior. After our upgrade to 5.2, Samba seems to drop shares for no
> >reason from time to time and we decided we had finally had enough. No
> >one on our network services staff wants to support/learn/troubleshoot
> >Samba (bunch of unix hating MS guys) and so this way we can lean on
> >IBM for support.
>
> sounds like you need new staff.

Who you telling? If it doesnt start with "MS" and you cant download a
cheat guide/brain dump to help you get certified in it, our network
staff will have nothing to do with it.