Hi.  I posted this 22/5/04 in linux.samba, and there has not been any
replies there to date, so hope you don't mind me reposting here - this
is a much more active and useful group.

I have been running a samba shared file server (RedHat9 -
samba-3.0.0-2.rpm) for a few years.  All has been working fine -
however ...
Lately a couple of the clients (WinXP) have been having trouble
reconnecting mapped network drives at bootup.  After some time
(sometimes few minutes, sometimes longer?) they usually do connect.
This delay is not really acceptable in our workplace, obviously.
Extract from /etc/samba/smb.conf as example of one of the shares :

############################
[Projects]
comment = Projects Directory
path = /mnt/office2/projects
; ??   valid users = @staff
public = no
writable = yes
write list = @staff
;   read only = No
create mask = 0775
;   create mask = 0765
directory mask = 0775
;   guest ok = Yes
##############################

All users have been added to staff group and staff has been made
their primary group (not sure if that was necessary, but it worked).
They have all been added to smbpasswd.  There are no restrictions on
network addresses (all internal).
Thinking about it, the only thing that has changed before we started
having this connection problem is that I have installed a wireless
network and access point since we expanded into another office.  The
samba server and about 10 clients are on a cat5 cable connection to
a switch ( subnet 192.168.0).  The wireless access point is also
connected to that switch.  The wireless lan pc's (4 of them) have
the same subnet.  Didn't think that would be a problem.
The mapped network drive problem is happening to clients on both
wireless and cable connectors.
Any ideas?  Similar experiences?
Let me know if you require further information.
--
T R O Y  P I G G I N S
e : troy@piggo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Troy Piggins <troy@piggo.com> wrote:
> Lately a couple of the clients (WinXP) have been having trouble
> reconnecting mapped network drives at bootup.

WinXP has problems reconnecting network shares even if they are
Windows Shares! In my network (150 clients) every now and then some
(l)user phones me because 'he can't access the X: disk' (they
can't say 'the directory such-and-such on the server'). And the usual
answer is reboot the fscking machine! And keep in mind that the server
is Winwows and the clients are Winwows and they _are_ updated regularly.

Davide

--
| Il brilgue: les t^oves libricilleux  Se gyrent et frillant dans le
| guave, Enm^im'es sont les gougebosquex,  Et le m^omerade horgrave.
| -- Lewis Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass"
|

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Troy Piggins wrote:
>
> I have been running a samba shared file server (RedHat9 -
> samba-3.0.0-2.rpm) for a few years.  All has been working fine -
> however ...
> Lately a couple of the clients (WinXP) have been having trouble
> reconnecting mapped network drives at bootup.  After some time
> (sometimes few minutes, sometimes longer?) they usually do connect.

Delay on connection is usually a DNS issue.  Broken reverse
deligation NS records on the name server.  Since these hosts
are Windows oriented that likely means the Active Directory's
DNS function rather than regular DNS.

> Thinking about it, the only thing that has changed before we started
> having this connection problem is that I have installed a wireless
> network and access point since we expanded into another office.

Happened together with a change on an internal network, check.

Double check how your DNS is working from the Linux end.  Make
sure the reverse zones are properly deligated.  If your DNS
server is on Linux make double sure it is receiving complete
updates from DHCP.  If your DNS server is the DHCP host make
sure it knows about both forward and reverse DNS and that all
of your static IP numbers are registered.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

* Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> [comp.unix.admin]:

<snip>
> Delay on connection is usually a DNS issue.  Broken reverse
> deligation NS records on the name server.  Since these hosts
> are Windows oriented that likely means the Active Directory's
> DNS function rather than regular DNS.

Aah, I think I might look at something.  While I don't have an internal
DNS set up, because all IPs are static, I think I did put entries in
most of the guys' winnt\sys32\drivers\etc\hosts file (sim to
/etc/hosts).  Maybe the problem guys don't have that file yet.  Thanks.
 
>
> Happened together with a change on an internal network, check.
>
> Double check how your DNS is working from the Linux end.  Make
> sure the reverse zones are properly deligated.  If your DNS
> server is on Linux make double sure it is receiving complete
> updates from DHCP.  If your DNS server is the DHCP host make
> sure it knows about both forward and reverse DNS and that all
> of your static IP numbers are registered.

Thanks.
--
T R O Y  P I G G I N S
e : troy@piggo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

* Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> [comp.unix.admin]:

<snip>
> Delay on connection is usually a DNS issue.  Broken reverse
> deligation NS records on the name server.  Since these hosts
> are Windows oriented that likely means the Active Directory's
> DNS function rather than regular DNS.

Found a wrong entry in windows hosts file, and that appears to be it.
--
T R O Y  P I G G I N S
e : troy@piggo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2004-06-23, Troy Piggins <troy@piggo.com> wrote:
[snippety]
>
> Aah, I think I might look at something.  While I don't have an internal
> DNS set up, because all IPs are static, I think I did put entries in
> most of the guys' winnt\sys32\drivers\etc\hosts file (sim to
> /etc/hosts).  Maybe the problem guys don't have that file yet.  Thanks.

You do realize that DNS was ment to ease centralized administration of
that hosts file[1], and has very little to do with staticness of IPs?


[1] Yes, there used to be a wide distribution of a hosts file, including
use of well-known ftp IPs where you always could get the latest.
Then people got sick of it and invented DNS.

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

* jpd <read_the_sig@do.not.spam.it> [comp.unix.admin]:

<snip>
> You do realize that DNS was ment to ease centralized administration of
> that hosts file[1], and has very little to do with staticness of IPs?
>
>
> [1] Yes, there used to be a wide distribution of a hosts file, includi
ng
>     use of well-known ftp IPs where you always could get the latest.
>     Then people got sick of it and invented DNS.

Yes, I realise that.  However I am not a sysadmin, I am an engineer with
an interest in things *nix and have set up this network at work in my
own time and at night (my company is too small for a full-time sysadmin)
DNS is probably next on the list now ;-) , although I have looked at it
in the past and got scared off.  BIND seems too complicated/complex for the
network I have.  I am running samba, and was thinking of the DNS/DHCP/WINS
combo, but since I am just teaching myself as I go (and I do have to
sleep some time) it is all too hard at the moment, and that is
another post ...
Thanks for the advice.
--
T R O Y  P I G G I N S
e : troy@piggo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2004-06-24, Troy Piggins <troy@piggo.com> wrote:
[snip: dns instead of hosts files everywhere]
> DNS is probably next on the list now ;-) , although I have looked at it
> in the past and got scared off.  BIND seems too complicated/complex for th
e
> network I have.

Well, IME it is one of the easier things to setup, given that it's very
often distributed with the system already. All you need to do is feed it
the right zone files. Admittedly that can be a bit tricky at first, but
there are some good tutorials around (the ldp DNS HOWTO comes to mind).


>  I am running samba, and was thinking of the DNS/DHCP/WINS
> combo, but since I am just teaching myself as I go (and I do have to
> sleep some time) it is all too hard at the moment, and that is
> another post ...

Hope you slept when you read this. :-)  DNS is still something you really
want to have. DHCP is useful for handing out lots of configuration data
like wins server ips. Don't know about wins integration but if you have
DHCP hand out hostnames as well I think you'll go a long way.

If you can take a few days off to figure it all you might want to
invest in setting up something like sauron[1]; it requires a PostgreSQL
database and a perl-cgi capable httpd (ie apache+mod_perl) but will
present nice forms to make changes and can then generate new forward and
reverse zones, and bind and dhcp configuration files from its database.

I have to say that it required a bit of sql-by-hand to coerce it into
working right (it complained it had no @ zone record and so refused to
let me put one in through its forms, but force-feeding one through the
command line PostgreSQL client was not hard). That may well be fixed now.


[1] http://sauron.jyu.fi/

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Troy Piggins wrote:
>
> However I am not a sysadmin ... BIND seems too complicated/complex for the
> network I have.

You have Windows on your network.  Don't you have Active Directory or
NT4 Domain?  This will sound bizzare from a guy that is a regular on
comp.unix.admin, but the DNS service supplied by NT Domain or Active
Directory work just fine and it can be set up by SAGE Junior NT folks
like some MCSE from a job shop.  Your Unix hosts won't care if the
DNS server runs BIND or if its running Active Directory with DNS
turned on.  A server's a server on DNS.

Then again reading and learning and experimenting is good for the
soul, so running BIND on one of your Unix boxes is the religiously
correct way to do it ... from a guy that is a regular on comp.unix.admin.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

* Doug Freyburger <dfreybur@yahoo.com> [comp.unix.admin]:

<snip>
> You have Windows on your network.  Don't you have Active Directory or
> NT4 Domain?  This will sound bizzare from a guy that is a regular on
> comp.unix.admin, but the DNS service supplied by NT Domain or Active
> Directory work just fine and it can be set up by SAGE Junior NT folks
> like some MCSE from a job shop.  Your Unix hosts won't care if the
> DNS server runs BIND or if its running Active Directory with DNS
> turned on.  A server's a server on DNS.

I have no domain set up, just a workgroup (sorry if that offends
anyone).  There are only about 15 machines on it (12 WinXP and 3 linux
servers - samba, imap, apache, iptables, squid, clamassassin,
spamassassin).  Again, I may experiment with domain with DNS, but why
fix something that aint broke ...

> Then again reading and learning and experimenting is good for the
> soul, so running BIND on one of your Unix boxes is the religiously
> correct way to do it ... from a guy that is a regular on comp.unix.admin.

Don't know about my soul, but it is fun.  "Hello, my name is Troy and I
am a learn-a-holic".
--
T R O Y  P I G G I N S
e : troy@piggo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]