Re: making Samba work [Solved]

• Previous message: Bob Kryger: "FC3 panics on dual-core AMD x86_64"
• In reply to: Claude Jones: "Re: making Samba work [Solved]"
• Next in thread: Jeff Vian: "Re: making Samba work"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:12:12 +0200

Am Mi, den 03.08.2005 schrieb Claude Jones um 19:55:

> This whole area of networking continues to pose questions I haven't really
> resolved. The problem stems from Microsoft's confusing nomenclature.
> Microsoft uses 'domain' to describe a lan network topology interchangeably
> with the more widespread use of the term with it's different connotations
> when applied to internet domains - the two uses of the term don't always
> describe identically behaved constructs, so Microsoft's documentation has led
> to confusion over the years. Can I accurately depict my home network as a
> 'domain' if all my FC4 box is doing is dhcp and routing to the internet? If
> that is all it's doing, is it correct to call the box
> viewridgeproductions2.com? My box is on the internet, but it's just an IP
> address - there's no domain registered to viewridgeproductions2.com, and if
> you try to get to me using that address, you'll arrive on the moon...

Yes, it can be confusing like you describe, unfortunately.
Forgive me if I don't want to discuss the Windows® aspects of domains
(controller, AD, etc.) but only answer to the questions which are
virulent to your home network setup. You can use in your LAN (home area)
whatever domainname you like. "viewridgeproductions2.com" is not (yet) a
pubic registered domain, thus not resolvable by public DNS servers. So
at least it is temporary safe to use it. It may be wiser to use
somethings which won't ever be public valid, as nowadays you always have
a network with IP and public connectivity (speaking about a use where
you connect to internet, at least part time). So name resolution is a
matter. If you internally use the same mechanisms to resolve host names
as they are used in public net area you can call your hosts be part of a
domain.
How you manage your hostnames and their resolution inside your LAN is a
different question. Having just a very few it is manageable to keep a
valid copy of /etc/hosts on each host. No DNS server needed then. If you
run a DNS your own, then the "search <foo>" entry in /etc/resolv.conf
comes to play. I explained that part already.
A different thing is the NETBIOS name space, where a NETBIOS name can be
but not must be the same name as the IP hostname. Typcially they are
identic, but you may set the NETBIOS name differently. The name is
individual for each host and not to be mixed up with the self chosen
domain name. Last one may be kept identical with the WORKGROUP name.

> > Btw. it can be helpful to run a WINS in your network if you see that it
> > takes long time (up to 12 minutes) until SMB hosts like the Samba
> > machine appear in network browsing.
> >
> Now this is interesting - this could account for some anomalous behavior I
> noticed while trying to fix things - it seemed like occasionally, after
> trying something, if I got distracted, or took a particularly long time, then
> the SMB shares would start 'appearing' - are you suggesting that I run WINS
> on the FC4 box? I ask, but, the answer seems obvious - where else would I run
> it?

It is no problem to test the situation with enabling the WINS capability
in the Samba server. You just will have to tell all clients that there
is a WINS server (i.e. for Windows® hosts in the network settings). I
said to run WINS on Samba as probably the Samba host is the constant
runner. Else use the host and OS which has the most uptime in long view.
What Andy Pieters just replied can too be taken seriously as a good
advise. Let the Samba server play the master browser. To be sure it
overrides even newer Windows® OS hosts set os level = 65" (255 is
maximum). This can prevent that hosts battle about to be the master and
thus delaying the population of a current browse list.
This all said with respect that the physical part is proper and no host
blocks smb traffic (tcp, udp) by filters like iptables or "personal
firewalls".

> Claude Jones

Alexander

-- 
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.11-1.35_FC2smp 
Serendipity 21:45:15 up 19 days, 2:17, load average: 0.14, 0.21, 0.22 

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

• application/pgp-signature attachment: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

• Previous message: Bob Kryger: "FC3 panics on dual-core AMD x86_64"
• In reply to: Claude Jones: "Re: making Samba work [Solved]"
• Next in thread: Jeff Vian: "Re: making Samba work"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]