Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. in All Things Unix http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15001533 en Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:20:30 EDT Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:20:30 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15008789 Eatmeingreek : Delayed ACK and TCP_NODELAY (disable Nagle's algorithm) are no the same thing. They do interact badly, however:

»www.port80software.com/200ok/arc···317.aspx

That shouldn't have been the problem in this case, 'cause you had TCP_NODELAY set in your smb.conf

You might be on the right track with the Linux driver:

»www.scyld.com/rtl8139.html#8139too
--
"PowerPoint is a distraction. People use it when they don't know what to say."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15008789 Mon, 12 Dec 2005 23:33:00 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15001533 jfgrissom : This sudo sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
is Awesome!

My DL times from Suse9.2
(I know OpenSuse10 is out, and it is FREE! I'm upgrading I swear!)
SMB server to my Mac went from (this is no exageration)
90-150KB/sec to 900KB-1MB/sec.

It does look like it bursts though... (Hi speeds for 10 seconds -- sleep for 2 seconds -- hi speed again but that could be my slow Wifi-G connection)

It Also provides much much faster responce time if you wan to cancel transfers.
This is good stuff... has anyone seen it break anything?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15001533 Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:55:18 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14515649 anon : btw, i have an another problem, maybe you can help me...
mac users, when browsing samba share, cannot see full information about file ownership and permissions,
they only see: you can read an write :huh:
But they want to know who created file.
Any suggestions, what can i do for them to see that info?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14515649 Thu, 06 Oct 2005 05:53:38 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14515626 anon : dont know if it's interesting for you guys, but i found that you can create file /etc/sysctl.conf (on mac of course) and put the following line in it:
net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0

It works fine! :)

PS Thanks for your wonderful advise, now my freebsd file server can serve macs too :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14515626 Thu, 06 Oct 2005 05:34:10 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14467428 MiloMindbend :
said by z3r :

I guess sysctl twiddling must remain the solution. Irritating, but not serious.
Well, there is another option, if it's a big enough PITA for you (it wasn't a big enough itch for me to scratch, personally -- I only have limited interaction with SMB shares):

Download the smbfs.kext source, tweak the socket options, rebuild it, and replace the original .kext with it (I'd rename the old one, not delete it ;-). That's one of the neat things about Darwin -- the core OS _is_ open...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14467428 Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:53:30 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14466778 anon : Thanks. I guess you must be write about the file being ignored. Certainly, appending

socket options = TCP_NODELAY

to /private/var/root/.nsmbrc (and also, for good measure, copying the resulting file to my $HOME and temporarily doing chmod go+r on both copies) doesn't change the behaviour. Estimate of time taken to transfer 152MB: 1 hour.

I guess sysctl twiddling must remain the solution. Irritating, but not serious.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14466778 Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:51:30 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14459578 MiloMindbend : Same sort of thing as in smb.conf, iirc: "options TCP_NODELAY"

I'd start by pulling the smbfs kext source from OpenDarwin, though, and see if it actually even reads the nsmbrc files -- it could very well not.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14459578 Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:14:37 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14459003 anon : Hi.

Thanks for posting---I'm very glad to find a workaround for this problem, which was killing transfer speeds between a FreeBSD samba server with an Intel NIC and my OS 10.4 Powerbook client.

I'd like to try the nsmbrc solution you mention (and it seems plausible to put it in the root .nsmbrc) but documentation about .nsmbrc and its syntax is hard to find. All I find on my system and by Google is an "example file" with a few commented-out lines that seem irrelevant to this problem.

How would you, in principle, disable delayed acks in a nsmbrc config file?

cheers, --jez]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14459003 Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:48:34 EDT Re: Problem solved. Culprit: Bad Linux NIC/Driver http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14373703 manifest : You know I should have realized this. Right around when I upgraded from 10.3 to 10.4 I also had to a motherboard replacement on my linux server. The NIC was also changed. I was using a realtek chipset and went to a 3com 3c905. Changing the nic must have done it for me as well.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14373703 Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:30:43 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14372279 MiloMindbend :
said by Crypto See Profile :

It's certainly much, much faster with delayed acks set to 0 on the OS X box. What are the ramifications to just leaving the OS X box like that?
Sorry, forgot to answer that one. If you leave it like that, nothing will break, but your other network traffic will be less than optimal, as TCP will send an ack for every packet instead of combining them and acking several packets at a time. So just evaluate your typical network usage (with the most emphasis on local, high-speed stuff) -- if it's mostly SMB to a server that doesn't deal well with delayed acks, I'd normally leave it disabled. If that's a small percentage of your overall usage, I'd leave it at it's default. Heck, you could always wrap it with an Automator script and assign a hotkey to it to switch on demand. ;-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14372279 Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:14:49 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14369244 MiloMindbend :
said by Crypto See Profile :

You say that this should do the same thing as putting TCP_NODELAY on the Linux samba server? Thats odd, because I did that already and didnt seem to have any results.
It effectively does the same thing _on the Mac_ that the smb.conf TCP_NODELAY does _on the Linux box_. But it was the Linux box that was pausing because the Mac wasn't sending an ack to every packet, so you have to disable the delayed acks on the Mac.

You're supposed to be able to set socketopts in ~/.nsmbrc (disabling delayed acks just for the smbfs kernel extension, rather than for the whole system), but I never got that to work (hmm, wonder if it has to be in /etc/nsmbrc instead, since mount_smbfs is suid root)...

Anyway, I run into it infrequently enough that I just twiddle the sysctl knob. It gets the job done. :-)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14369244 Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:34:34 EDT Problem solved. Culprit: Bad Linux NIC/Driver http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14367170 Crypto : Wow, after googling on the sysctl command milo posted here, I saw at least one instance of someone saying "I set this command on my BSD box because I was having problems with a realtek ethernet card that for some reason wasnt handling delayed ACKs well"

Well, I have a Linksys card, which had a realtek in it. So I shut down the venerable linux server thats been going for 5 years, and swapped out the linksys card with a spare Intel E100 I had.

I remmed out all the samba performance options I had tried, and set delayed acks back to 1 on the OS X box, and pulled a giant file down from the samba share.

And it hauled ass.

Thats damned near the strangest network problem I have ever seen in my life, and I have no way to explain it other than to chalk it up to bad linux driver code.

Thanks everyone, for their help, and specially thanks to Milomindbender for putting me on the right track.
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14367170 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:43:20 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14366923 Crypto :
said by MiloMindbend See Profile :

Try this (on the OS X side):

'sudo sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0'
DING DING DING DING DING!! And we have a winner! that sped it right up.

You say that this should do the same thing as putting TCP_NODELAY on the Linux samba server? Thats odd, because I did that already and didnt seem to have any results.

It's certainly much, much faster with delayed acks set to 0 on the OS X box. What are the ramifications to just leaving the OS X box like that?
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14366923 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:10:08 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14366528 subcultured :
said by Crypto See Profile :

said by Daemon See Profile :

I can tell you it's not a fatal flaw in the SMB implementation in OSX. I have a Fedora box connected to a 10.4 machine (used to be 10.3), and it just flies.
Thats actually the most valuable data point I have gotten yet from this whole thing. That tells me that there might be something peculiar to the way this version of samba was compiled. Maybe it's time to compile it from scratch and see what happens.
I was the admin for about a hundred macs in my last job and we had several Fedora boxen running samba flawlessly to the macs and windows clients alike. We also had one Debian fileserver (can't remember which version...) that did indeed give us some serious problems with netatalk but actually worked very well using SMB.

Obviously there is some other issue with your server. Check that your macs, when sharing to windows/linux clients via samba, perform up to standard just to rule out an odd firewall issue. Regardless, I'd suggest rolling your own samba. It can't hurt...

Good luck,
Ian
--
Verum Ipsum Factum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14366528 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:21:40 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14366363 MiloMindbend : Try this (on the OS X side):

'sudo sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0'

(set it back to 1 when you're done playing)

It disables the TCP stack's delayed acks (that's what the TCP_NODELAY sockopts in smb.conf does). I haven't found a good way to pass this to the smb/cifs kernel extension, so I just twiddle the sysctl knob when I encounter a slow SMB server (in my case it's the corporate Win2K servers at work that are abysmally slow unless I turn off the delayed acks).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14366363 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:03:42 EDT Re: Please stop trying to push NFS. It sucks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14364821 Crypto : As I explained in detail before, I dont have matching UID/GID's on the mac and UNIX hosts. This means that I have to do NFS maps, something I hate, and something that I cannot support on this network. The idea is that this implementation needs to be so simple that it runs itself after I'm gone, and NFS isnt the way to do that, frankly.

On the NAS support front, it looks like the "optimize for macs" setting turns on an option I had never heard of called "sendfile", which is apparently not enabled by default on some samba implementations (and apprently not on the debian-based implementation shipped with this NAS device). When I get home tonight I hope to test this option and see what sort of results it gives.
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14364821 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:45:53 EDT Re: Please stop trying to push NFS. It sucks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14363705 wmcbrine :
said by sporkme See Profile :

although I don't see why one can't have both NFS and CIFS on the same box - I'm running samba, nfs and netatalk, all exporting the same stuff
I've done the same in the past, albeit only on a small LAN. I don't understand cbellers' reference to "implementing a NFS client on a crapload of win32 systems just to make the mac happy". Samba for Win32 clients, NFS and Netatalk for others; no problem that I'm aware of.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14363705 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:24:05 EDT Re: Please stop trying to push NFS. It sucks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14362358 computx :
said by Crypto See Profile :

Please stop trying to push NFS. It sucks.
Not really pushing nfs just thought I would mention an alternative as In my opinion samba sucks. (looks like it sucks for you too.)
Good luck with your samba installation.
--
To err is human...to really foul up requires the root password.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14362358 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:30:35 EDT Re: Please stop trying to push NFS. It sucks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14362178 Crypto : I tried netatalk, but its fairly ugly and has authentication issues of its own. Samba really is the preffered way to go for all clients because authentication ultimately needs to be done by the windows system anyway.

I've never had to use netstat in a performance diagnostic capacity before, can you point me towards a howto or drop me a few pointers?
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14362178 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:07:58 EDT Re: Please stop trying to push NFS. It sucks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14362121 sporkme :
said by Crypto See Profile :

my write speed is almost as fast with samba as with ftp or scp, but the read speed is still abyssmal, under 1MB/sec.
Have you run tcpdump to get an idea of what's different?

Are you dead-set against netatalk? You made it very clear you don't want NFS (although I don't see why one can't have both NFS and CIFS on the same box - I'm running samba, nfs and netatalk, all exporting the same stuff).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14362121 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 13:01:46 EDT Please stop trying to push NFS. It sucks. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14361362 Crypto : I am not going to implement nfs just for the very few macs I support. After over a decade of dealing with nfs, I hate it and will not implement it unless I absolutely have to, and the idea of implementing a NFS client on a crapload of win32 systems just to make the mac happy is just rediculous.

Additionally, the macs and Linux server dont share UID/GID, thus making it entirely unsuitable for an NFS implementation.

This thing about the NAS device is absolutely intriguing, because it uses a Debian-based OS. I am really beginning to suspect the culprit is some default setting that debian compiles in that no one else does, since I am hearing that only people with debian or debian based distros are having this problem.

Additional test data from last night:

I have concluded that the problem only exists in one direction.

my write speed is almost as fast with samba as with ftp or scp, but the read speed is still abyssmal, under 1MB/sec.

Here are the various samba options I tried last night, with no success (they just made things worse)

large read write = on
max xmit =
all the SO_ buffer settings
all the NODELAY and LOWDELAY options.

I'll go over to that NAS forum and see what I can dig up, thank you.
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14361362 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:12:48 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14360261 sirozha : There's a really cool NAS made by Infrant called ReadyNAS. It's a device with the size of a shoe box with four SATA drives configured as RAID 1 or RAID 5. They also have another sibling that has patent-pending XRAID that changes from RAID 1 to RAID 5 automatically when the number of HDs changes from 2 to 3 without you having to move the data out and reconfiguren the RAID level. This device has a special setting for OS X clients. Without this setting enabled, OS X clients are extremely slow transferring files to or from the NAS. With this setting enabled, the speed improves dramatically, but this setting negatively affects Windows NT clients (not Windows 2000 or XP).

So, if you are really interested to find out why your OS X clients are so slow, you may want to go to www.infrant.com/forums and ask what that setting does to change the performance of OS X clients. By the way, Infrant developed their own chip and their own OS called RAIDiator. It's based on Debian Linux, though.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14360261 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:03:48 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14360055 bbarrera :
said by NOCMan See Profile :

It does not seem that slow going to my NSLU2 samba shares.
There is definitely a speed difference between linux-based NSLU2 samba shares and WinXP Pro shares. My NSLU2 samba shares are a good bit slower than WinXP Pro shares (1GHz PIII Dell laptop). Copying a 33.7MB file from linux-based NSLU2 to Mac takes ~9.5 sec and copying same file from WinXP Pro to Mac takes ~6.5 sec. I'll reboot the WinXP laptop into Gentoo tomorrow and retest, that way we can take slower NSLU2 processor and disk drive differences out of the equation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14360055 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:39:30 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14360033 computx : It appears mac os/x supports nfs file sharing. If you don't need to have a windows box in the mix then it would make sense to go with nfs instead of samba.

Even if you have a windows box you can get it to use nfs, using services for unix, according to this microsoft knowledgebase article.

»support.microsoft.com/?kbid=324055

Also this might be useful for the mac.
»www.bresink.de/osx/NFSManager.html
--
To err is human...to really foul up requires the root password.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14360033 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:22:00 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14359308 NOCMan : It does not seem that slow going to my NSLU2 samba shares.

I have a unbuntu box that houses the iTunes and that connection is NFS and it's pretty damn fast.
--
»www.silentbrouhaha.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14359308 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:23:07 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14357647 Crypto :
said by Daemon See Profile :

I can tell you it's not a fatal flaw in the SMB implementation in OSX. I have a Fedora box connected to a 10.4 machine (used to be 10.3), and it just flies.
Thats actually the most valuable data point I have gotten yet from this whole thing. That tells me that there might be something peculiar to the way this version of samba was compiled. Maybe it's time to compile it from scratch and see what happens.
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14357647 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 20:38:14 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14356557 Daemon : I can tell you it's not a fatal flaw in the SMB implementation in OSX. I have a Fedora box connected to a 10.4 machine (used to be 10.3), and it just flies.

In fact, it flies without me having to do anything special.

OTOH, multiple Macs might change the equation. I have heard anecdotal evidence that Macs insist on being the master browser and force constant elections until they win. If true, who knows what happens if multiple macs get together.

I agree with sporkme. If something about the packets on the link or the topology of the network is slowing it down, it may show the same symptoms with smbd on OS X.
--
-Ryan
What 64 bit CPUs mean for most people: OMFG HUEG NUMBERZ!!!11!! NEED GIGGLEHERTZ AND 128BIT FOR W3RD!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14356557 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:12:31 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14356316 sporkme :
said by Crypto See Profile :

I have not shared out anything on the OS X boxes, because they are not servers, and I dont care how the OS X smbd performs.
You may not care, but you may gain some insight by trying that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14356316 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:40:36 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14355791 Crypto : When I say 'slow' I mean that the data moves at under 1MB/sec via samba. Oddly, writing to the linux samba share is a little faster than reading from it.

It moves at close to wirespeed using any other transfer method, like scp or ftp

I have not shared out anything on the OS X boxes, because they are not servers, and I dont care how the OS X smbd performs.
--
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14355791 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:29:15 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354951 sporkme : Questions:

-How about ftp transfers? Similar speeds?
-Slow with samba in both directions? (putting vs. getting file)
-Slow if the Linux box mounts the OS-X box?

I highly recommend Netatalk. Much simpler than samba, and it performs quite well. Even works well from outside and only requires one TCP port open.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354951 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:31:42 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354930 manifest : When you say slow, do you mean responsiveness of the share or how fast the data is sent? I have a linux server running gentoo and samba 3 2 pc's and a mac mini. I can get 9mb/s from linux to mac and vice versa. When I upgraded from 10.3.9 to 10.4 on the mac I noticed about a 3mb/s increase. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354930 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:29:24 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354821 Crypto : Yes, I've considered it and utterly rejected the concept as rediculous.

I've found that NFS is terrible for most client/server installations, honestly. Linux has a lousy NFS server, the protocol itself is terrible for security up until nfsv4 and then it's not well supported. The authentication is ugly as well up to v4 and relies on UID/GID, which arent usually homogenous in my environments. Maybe if you're in an entirely UNIX environment it's okay, but this is not where I am.

SMB and CIFS are excellent cross-platform implementations. When one's network consists of one Linux server and a bunch of PC's with a few macs thrown in, samba is the logical choice. NFS is a needless security risk and simply asking for trouble, IMO.

So, no. I'm not going to set up NFS just for a few macs. I just want to fix whats wrong with samba.
--

I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354821 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:34 EDT Re: OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354743 wmcbrine : Have you considered NFS? Or maybe even AppleTalk? IMHO Samba is for talking to Windows.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14354743 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:06:23 EDT OS X client, linux server, samba pain. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14353410 Crypto : So, here's my basic problem: Samba and OS X arent playing nice together.

I've been fighting this for over 3 years now, and there's no resolution in sight. I'm convinced that something is broken in OS X's smbclient implementation, but I have no idea what it might be or how to address it. So I'm looking for workarounds , hoping that at least one of you might have run across the following scenario:

OS X clients (from OS X public beta all the way up to 10.4 Tiger), both when reading and writing, perform absolutely craptacularly when interacting with every version of Samba that Debian or knoppix has come with since 2000. When I saw craptacularly, I'm talking about transfer rates of about 128KB/sec on a gigabit link.


Client            Server              Result
________________________________________________
OS X              Samba               Slow
OS X              Windows             Fast
Windows           Samba               Fast


All scenarios have been tested with multiple test subjects of each platform

The problem, it seems, has to be limited to OS X, but I have been unable to find any solutions that have worked. When I look online, everything seems to center around twiddling various options in smb.conf, but none of them so far have made a difference.

For what it's worth, here's the relevant parts of my current smb.conf


############ Misc ############
 
# Using the following line enables you to customise your configuration
# on a per machine basis. The %m gets replaced with the netbios name
# of the machine that is connecting
;   include = /home/samba/etc/smb.conf.%m
 
# Most people will find that this option gives better performance.
# See smb.conf(5) and /usr/share/doc/samba-doc/htmldocs/speed.html
# for details
# You may want to add the following on a Linux system:
#         SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
#   socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
 
# **PERFORMANCE TWEAKS ***
socket options = IPTOS_LOWDELAY TCP_NODELAY
large readwrite = no
deadtime = 15
max xmit = 65535
 
# The following parameter is useful only if you have the linpopup package
# installed. The samba maintainer and the linpopup maintainer are
# working to ease installation and configuration of linpopup and samba.
;   message command = /bin/sh -c '/usr/bin/linpopup "%f" "%m" %s; rm %s' &
 
# Domain Master specifies Samba to be the Domain Master Browser. If this
# machine will be configured as a BDC (a secondary logon server), you
# must set this to 'no'; otherwise, the default behavior is recommended.
   domain master = auto


Any experience you could share on this would be most helpful to me, because I'm frankly disgusted with not being able to fix this.

--

I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to encrypt it.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14353410 Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:03:56 EDT