Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have a network with a few domains and a two subnets(for now).
I've come across a snag while setting up my smbd.
I can't seem to connect to it(rh 8.0) from any of my comps(nt's and rh's) when using my server' name. I can ping it with the ip and the domain name, but I get nada when just using the server's name.
I set up the bios name on my smbd.conf file and what workgroup it is. I can even see my server listed on my nt's under that workgroup(same domain, diff subnet(can that be an issue?)). But I can't connect to it.
At first I thought it was a dns problem because I couldn't even ping my server using the name from itself(if i remember correctly.) Then i put a line in the /etc/resolv.conf that settled that issue.
So now I think it must be a NetBIOS issue. But when I try nmblookup -S [server] it says that it failed to find name [server].
Now for the more samba-related side of this problem. When I try to get in from a linux box(same subnet) using
Code:
smbclient -L [server] -U [me]
the connect is refused. Even when I put -I [ip address] or [domain name] it won't connect. It gave me a connection refused [ip]:139. So I nmaped my server and 137,138,139 ports are open. That doesn't make sense.
I'm fairly certain it's not a "user" problem because I have the same accounts on both boxes.
I'm sure once I get the name issue taken care of it will all be worked out.
It gave me a connection refused [ip]:139. So I nmaped my server and 137,138,139 ports are open. That doesn't make sense.
Not quite. If your iptables blocks above ports (REJECT) you can get such info. Have you done nmap from same host as samba is running or from any external one?
had a similar problem. iptables was blocking the ports. I'd say check out what "iptables -L" gives you. If the right ports arent open run RHs firewall config and add 137,138,139 in BOTH tcp and udp to permitted ports.
What are your logs saying? If nothing is getting generated the
smb/nmb traffic isn't getting through. If there are entries then the
configuration is fried for some reason so we will need to see the
conf files before we can help
There should be errors being created on connection attempts in
/var/log/samba/smbd.log
/var/log/samba/<workstation connecting>.log
For example, two log entries for an unconfigured system.
[root@apples dave]# tail -f /var/log/samba/smbd.log
[2003/10/23 16:07:38, 0] smbd/server.c:main(751)
standard input is not a socket, assuming -D option
[root@apples dave]# tail -f /var/log/samba/ws04.log
[2003/10/23 16:09:22, 0] passdb/pdb_smbpasswd.cdb_getsampwnam(1369)
unable to open passdb database.
For the last two days I had a problem connection to win2k from my RedHat 7.1 laptop. I can see the laptop computer icon in window, but when I clicked it, it says there is no server.
I just solved the problem in the following way. As matter of fact I got a hint from your messages.
I look at the ipchains and, by using lokkit, lowered the security level to medium.
More precisely, I customized the accessibility such as ftp and telnet. And it works perfectly.
Hey, this might not be worth it because today or tomorrow I'm going to have to set up samba/pdc on a new computer and scrap this one. My boss is giving me his new dual processer xion precesion 650 because it was "too loud."
But I still want to figure this out.
The smdb.log keeps showing the same error again and again.
[2003/10/20 11:28:50, 0] smbd/oplock_linux.c:linux_init_kernel_oplocks(287)
Failed to setup RT_SIGNAL_LEASE handler
As for ipchains, I have iptables, but I'm sure there's something comprable to "lokkit."
I was looking for the solution to the initially described problem : That with Samba 3.0 I couldn't use NetBios names , but only the server's IP address to connect to it.
I think I've found the solution. For me, I've enabled the socket option SO_BROADCAST
I came to the conclusion that this was what was missing when doing some basic investigations:
- The name of my samba server couldn't be resolved by windows clients using regular network browsing, nor by Linux clients using smbmount / smbclient.
- The IP address could be used instead of the name, which would work. The PC would then show up in the correct workgroup, but not by name, but by IP address.
- A direct lookup using nbtstat -A <server IP> worked. This would resolve all the information from the server. But then nbtstat -r would not display it. However, the samba server was from that point on known by its name on the PC on which nbtstat was run (with -A).
Mainly this last thing made me doubt the broadcast, as nbtstat -r displays all broadcasting servers.
So, having found this SO_BROADCAST socket option in smb.conf manual page, figured I'd give it a try :-) and it works.
So, add a line:
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_BROADCAST
I have checked my samba 2.2.3 config, which reads only TCP_NODELAY as socket option. Appearantly the broadcast was taken for granted?
Well, let me know if this does or does not work for you.
Cheers,
Nash
PS. About iptables -F , if you wonder what the disadvantage is of giving that command : Your firewall is now down. Please check a manual page on iptables ;-)
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.