From: Marc Palmer < M...@landscap.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Samba, Linux and Windows '95
Date: 1995/06/01
Message-ID: <691760695wnr@landscap.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 103630517
sender: n...@news.demon.co.uk
x-posting-host: landscap.demon.co.uk
organization: LANDSCAPE CHANNEL
reply-to: M...@landscap.demon.co.uk
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking
We've got Samba running fine here in my office using Windows for
Workhroups 3.11. I've got 7 machines that share files stored on a Linux
box.
Enter the spanner:
I've installed Windows '95 beta on a machine for a
spate of masochism, and all is not well. I've successfully got
Windows'95 talking to the rest of the Workgroup PCs using Micro$oft's
TCP/IP stack shipped with Windows '95. All is well on that front. I can
also see the Samba/Linux box in the list of machines in the "Network
Neighborhood". When I click on it to see the shared resources, that
works too! I couldn't believe my luck! You can even see all of the
files/directories that are shared. Alas, woe ensues when you discover
that any attempt to read/write a file causes Win 95 to COMPLETELY COLLAPSE!!!!
Recursive blue screens with Kernel/GP Faults are not fun. Despite
behaving pretty well in all other respects, Win 95 MUST be rebooted
completely once this happens. NOT GOOD!
Is there something different about Win95's use of the LAN manager/MS
Net protocol? Why can this new machine access WfWg3.11 machines and not
Samba? The MS TCP/IP stack seems to work fine in all other respects, I
don't think that is at fault.
I'd be grateful for any help.
********************************************************************
* Marc P. E-Mail me for PGP 2.6 key *
* *
* "Most of the ideas I have at the moment have to do with things *
* that are completely impossible, so I am wary about sharing them. *
* They are, however, the only thoughts I have." - Dirk Gently *
********************************************************************
From: dool...@recycle.cebaf.gov (Larry Doolittle)
Subject: Re: Samba, Linux and Windows '95
Date: 1995/06/01
Message-ID: < D9IFM8.6xv@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 103630654
sender: use...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
x-nntp-posting-host: recycle.cebaf.gov
references: <691760695wnr@landscap.demon.co.uk>
organization: CEBAF
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking
Marc Palmer (M...@landscap.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[ successful samba, until installed Win 95 ]
: that any attempt to read/write a file causes Win 95 to COMPLETELY COLLAPSE!!!!
: Recursive blue screens with Kernel/GP Faults are not fun.
Hey, what did you expect from "beta test" software?
< snicker>
Maybe it will be Win 96, after all!
- Larry Doolittle ldool...@cebaf.gov
From: Marc Palmer < M...@landscap.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Samba, Linux and Windows '95
Date: 1995/06/07
Message-ID: <635459679wnr@landscap.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104042224
sender: n...@news.demon.co.uk
references: <691760695wnr@landscap.demon.co.uk> < D9IFM8.6xv@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
x-posting-host: landscap.demon.co.uk
organization: LANDSCAPE CHANNEL
reply-to: M...@landscap.demon.co.uk
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking
In article: < D9IFM8....@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> dool...@recycle.cebaf.gov
(Larry Doolittle) writes:
>
> Marc Palmer (M...@landscap.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> [ successful samba, until installed Win 95 ]
>
> : that any attempt to read/write a file causes Win 95 to COMPLETELY COLLAPSE!!!!
> : Recursive blue screens with Kernel/GP Faults are not fun.
>
> Hey, what did you expect from "beta test" software?
> < snicker>
> Maybe it will be Win 96, after all!
>
Ha ha. It's a BUG in SAMBA.
********************************************************************
* Marc P. E-Mail me for PGP 2.6 key *
* *
* "Most of the ideas I have at the moment have to do with things *
* that are completely impossible, so I am wary about sharing them. *
* They are, however, the only thoughts I have." - Dirk Gently *
********************************************************************
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Samba, Linux and Windows '95
Date: 1995/06/13
Message-ID: < DA46su.3Kn@info.swan.ac.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104324032
sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
x-nntp-posting-host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
references: <691760695wnr@landscap.demon.co.uk>
< D9IFM8.6xv@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <635459679wnr@landscap.demon.co.uk>
organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking
In article <635459679...@landscap.demon.co.uk> M...@landscap.demon.co.uk writes:
>> Hey, what did you expect from "beta test" software?
>> Maybe it will be Win 96, after all!
>Ha ha. It's a BUG in SAMBA.
On the contrary its a bug in Win95. Anything that crashes a machine simply
by sending it network packets is a bug. If you can do this how long before
people write tools for blowing up win95 hosts.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Redistribution of this message via the Microsoft Network is prohibited
From: ga...@hartwick.edu (Robert C. Gann)
Subject: Samba Limitation?
Date: 1995/06/11
Message-ID: <1995Jun11.112920.4237@hartwick.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104227879
organization: Hartwick College
newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb
The MS Windows for Workgroups Resource Kit (3.1) states that
"NetBEUI is a small and efficient protocol designed for use
on a departmental LAN of 20 to 200 workstations."
Does this mean that Samba is limited to networks with
200 or fewer workstations and that NFS should be used on larger
networks?
--
Robert Gann Internet: GA...@HARTWICK.EDU
Dept. of Comp. & Info. Sciences Telephone: (607) 431-4761
Hartwick College FAX: (607) 431-4457
Oneonta, NY 13820
From: r...@puccio.org (Emanuele Pucciarelli)
Subject: Re: Samba Limitation?
Date: 1995/06/14
Message-ID: <3rmbmp$d0l@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104331600
references: <1995Jun11.112920.4237@hartwick.edu>
organization: The BBC Networking Club
newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb
Robert C. Gann (ga...@hartwick.edu) wrote:
> The MS Windows for Workgroups Resource Kit (3.1) states that
> "NetBEUI is a small and efficient protocol designed for use
> on a departmental LAN of 20 to 200 workstations."
> Does this mean that Samba is limited to networks with
> 200 or fewer workstations and that NFS should be used on larger
> networks?
I don't think so.... first, NetBEUI is not TCP/IP, and besides that NFS
is one of the worst protocols, about security.
However I'd like to see postings from someone more expert than me...
--
/___
/_
/___manuele (PGP key: finger p...@bbs.cc.uniud.it)
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Samba Limitation?
Date: 1995/06/15
Message-ID: < DA7J1G.4q0@info.swan.ac.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104468534
sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
x-nntp-posting-host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
references: <1995Jun11.112920.4237@hartwick.edu> <3rmbmp$d0l@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>
organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb
In article <3rmbmp$...@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk> r...@puccio.org (Emanuele Pucciarelli) writes:
>I don't think so.... first, NetBEUI is not TCP/IP, and besides that NFS
>is one of the worst protocols, about security.
>However I'd like to see postings from someone more expert than me...
NFS assumes the hosts each end and the network are trusted. Secure NFS
assumes the hosts are trusted. NetBEUI assumes the network is trusted.
NetBEUI spoofing is messy but not impossible.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Redistribution of this message via the Microsoft Network is prohibited
From: tri...@arvidsjaur.anu.edu.au (Andrew.Tridgell)
Subject: Re: Samba Limitation?
Date: 1995/06/23
Message-ID: < TRIDGE.95Jun23223622@arvidsjaur.anu.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104895940
distribution: world
references: <1995Jun11.112920.4237@hartwick.edu> <3rmbmp$d0l@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>
organization: Australian National University
reply-to: Andrew.Tridg...@anu.edu.au
newsgroups: comp.protocols.smb
> The MS Windows for Workgroups Resource Kit (3.1) states that
> "NetBEUI is a small and efficient protocol designed for use
> on a departmental LAN of 20 to 200 workstations."
> Does this mean that Samba is limited to networks with
> 200 or fewer workstations and that NFS should be used on larger
> networks?
I don't think so.... first, NetBEUI is not TCP/IP, and besides that NFS
is one of the worst protocols, about security.
However I'd like to see postings from someone more expert than me...
As several people have pointed out, Samba does not use Netbeui at all,
it uses TCP/IP. Samba has no trouble supporting very large numbers of
clients, as long as your unix box has enough ram, and can keep up with
the IO requests. There is no built in limit.
Basically the protocols that Samba uses go like this:
SMB->NBT->TCP->IP
SMB = file sharing protocol (aka LanManager)
NBT = Netbios over TCP/IP. this is the first 4 bytes of each packet
and TCP/IP is what we all know and love.
Samba also uses UDP/IP to handle name serving (that's what nmbd does)
Other SMB servers and clients support other transports. For example
over IPX you have:
SMB->NBIPX->IPX
and with Netbeui you have:
SMB->Netbeui
this last one is the one the original poster was referring to.
Most client can be configured to use any of the above (and some
support others, like decnet). Samba only supports TCP/IP. There are
people looking at adding Netbeui and/or IPX support but the work is
very preliminary and will probably be platform specific, most probably
linux only.
Andrew
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Andrew Tridgell Dept. of Computer Science
Andrew.Tridg...@anu.edu.au Australian National University (x5691)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-