SEO

Hi All,

I've compiled and installed Samba 3.0.2a with GCC 3.3.2 wihout
problems, but after that smbd or nmbd won't come up in daemon mode
(smbd -D or nmbd -D).

I've debugged with smbd -D -d 9, but I also don't see any problems
there either.
What I've noticed that smbd is consuming a lot of CPU time (1 of the 4
CPU's).

Has anyone got a clue to what I'm missing or doing wrong?
I've compiled and installed with the same versions on a linux box and
that's working fine. I need to get it running on the AIX box as well,
because that one has got a lot of storage attached to it.

Greetz,

Richard.

Hi Richard,

> I've compiled and installed Samba 3.0.2a with GCC 3.3.2 wihout
> problems, but after that smbd or nmbd won't come up in daemon mode
> (smbd -D or nmbd -D).
>
> I've debugged with smbd -D -d 9, but I also don't see any problems
> there either.
> What I've noticed that smbd is consuming a lot of CPU time (1 of the 4
> CPU's).

Have you looked at the log files, e.g. /var/log/samba/smbd.log?
(but i guess you have done this).
What are the logs saying?

Anyway, i've compiled the same Samba version on my private file server.
It didn't work but instead of consuming lots of CPU power the daemons
exited as soon as i started them.

I tracked this down to an open file number issue.
I had a limitation of max open files in my old smb.conf which caused the 3.0.2a
not to work . After disabling the entry it worked fine.

You may want to check this, but chances are very little that this
will be your problem.....

Maybe you could post your smb.conf, too.

Asaf there is a new release on Samba.org (3.0.3pre1),
which you could also try.

Bye

Ralf

How do you install Samba. I have mandrake 7.2

Ralf Herrmann <Ralf.Herrmann@iin.stud.tu-ilmenau.de> wrote in message news:<c4slam$k7v$1@piggy.rz.tu-ilmenau.de>...
> Hi Richard,
>
> > I've compiled and installed Samba 3.0.2a with GCC 3.3.2 wihout
> > problems, but after that smbd or nmbd won't come up in daemon mode
> > (smbd -D or nmbd -D).
> >
> > I've debugged with smbd -D -d 9, but I also don't see any problems
> > there either.
> > What I've noticed that smbd is consuming a lot of CPU time (1 of the 4
> > CPU's).
>
> Have you looked at the log files, e.g. /var/log/samba/smbd.log?
> (but i guess you have done this).
> What are the logs saying?
>
> Anyway, i've compiled the same Samba version on my private file server.
> It didn't work but instead of consuming lots of CPU power the daemons
> exited as soon as i started them.
>
> I tracked this down to an open file number issue.
> I had a limitation of max open files in my old smb.conf which caused the 3.0.2a
> not to work . After disabling the entry it worked fine.
>
> You may want to check this, but chances are very little that this
> will be your problem.....
>
> Maybe you could post your smb.conf, too.
>
> Asaf there is a new release on Samba.org (3.0.3pre1),
> which you could also try.
>
> Bye
>
> Ralf

I also don't think this is the problem, because I don't even spcify
the number of open files.

Here is my smb.conf:

[global]
workgroup = SODOM
server string = Samba Server on H50
obey pam restrictions = Yes
pam password change = Yes
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
passwd chat = *New*password* %n\n *Retype*new*password* %n\n
*passwd:*a*
unix password sync = Yes
log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log
max log size = 0
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
dns proxy = No
valid users = rdenze
admin users = rdenze
read list = rdenze
write list = rdenze
printing = lprng
veto files = /*.eml/*.nws/riched20.dll/*.{*}/

[homes]
comment = Home Directories
valid users = %S
read only = No
create mask = 0664
directory mask = 0775
browseable = No

[TSM]
comment = TSM Software
path = /share/TSM
valid users = rdenze
read list = rdenze
write list = rdenze
create mask = 0775

Hi Richard,


> Here is my smb.conf:
>
> [global]

.......

> printing = lprng
> veto files = /*.eml/*.nws/riched20.dll/*.{*}/

For the first overview, i cannot see any false entry.
To check the correctness of your smb.conf you may want to use
the tool testparm (see manpages).

The only thing i'm confused about is that you didn't disable the printing
services (via load printers = No in [global]) but also didn't
specify any spooling/printer sections.
I really don't know if that causes any problem (i don't use printing w/ samba),
but you may want to disable it for testing purposes.

I read in the online-version of smb.conf manpage
(at http://de.samba.org/samba/ftp/docs/h...mb.conf.5.html)
that there should be a [printers]-section wich must have a "printable=Yes" phrase.

I'm sorry i don't have any other ideas.
Don't forget to try the most recent Samba-release.....

CU

Ralf

Ralf Herrmann <Ralf.Herrmann@iin.stud.tu-ilmenau.de> wrote in message news:<c50i8q$dvv$1@piggy.rz.tu-ilmenau.de>...
> Hi Richard,
>
>
> > Here is my smb.conf:
> >
> > [global]
>
> ......
>
> > printing = lprng
> > veto files = /*.eml/*.nws/riched20.dll/*.{*}/
>
> For the first overview, i cannot see any false entry.
> To check the correctness of your smb.conf you may want to use
> the tool testparm (see manpages).
>
> The only thing i'm confused about is that you didn't disable the printing
> services (via load printers = No in [global]) but also didn't
> specify any spooling/printer sections.
> I really don't know if that causes any problem (i don't use printing w/ samba),
> but you may want to disable it for testing purposes.
>
> I read in the online-version of smb.conf manpage
> (at http://de.samba.org/samba/ftp/docs/h...mb.conf.5.html)
> that there should be a [printers]-section wich must have a "printable=Yes" phrase.
>
> I'm sorry i don't have any other ideas.
> Don't forget to try the most recent Samba-release.....
>
> CU
>
> Ralf

Hi Ralf,

I added the load printers = No in the [global] section, but that
didn't resolv my problem. When I try to run testparm it's resulting in
a coredump.

Richard.

Hi Richard,

> I added the load printers = No in the [global] section, but that
> didn't resolv my problem. When I try to run testparm it's resulting in
> a coredump.

Well i guess then it's all due to the little "a" in the Version number :-)
It may work fine on a 1 CPU Linux box but there seem to be problems on your
4 CPU architecture.
Or it is due to a mixture of your newly compiled samba and the version which was
installed before (i had a similar situation, too: compiled and installed the
new version but the box was using the old one instead. I simply forgot to tell
teh resource control scripts to use the new binaries......)

Besides trying to use the newest release or the stable version 3.0.0
i cannot suggest anything further.

But i think you could send your problem to the samba dev. community.
They might find the reason and fix it for the next release.

Ciao

Ralf