|
[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
[NMLUG] samba questions
Tim Emerick wrote:
> Hey gang. Couple of samba questions.
(imagines Cheers bar crowd) Hi Tim!
>
> 1)
> I'm getting very confused with linux/samba permission conflicts. I
> would like to let samba take care of file permissions by
> creating/modifying files with a -rwxrwxrwx type permissions. I'm
> under the impression that this will defeat the linux permissions and
> let file access depend on a password passed to samba. Can someone
> give me a pointer on using chown and chmod such that samba is
> controlling file permissions 100%.
>
> I am trying to emulate a Win98 type share mode file/print sharing
> setup where users must provide a password for certain shares. I've
> googled around but most help is directed to PDC type setups.
As with NT,+,++ the file permissions are very important for security.
Best bet is to look at the umask for your system, user's primary groups,
and the 'read list', 'write list', 'valid users', 'force group', and
'force user' commands. These latter commands are very handy when trying
to lock down permissions to a sane set of parameters.
> 2)
> I've been having problems with windows print jobs still showing in the
> queue even after they've been printed. While this is more an
> annoyance than anything else it seems that over time I have to kill
> the queue and re-create it to dump all the leftovers out. I think it
> has something to do with the LPR commands being passed.
I suspect you're right, but as I use cups for printing from Samba, I'm
not sure what I'd suggest you look for. Is there a log for lprng errors?
> 3)
> I've been having problems with a btrieve based application which slows
> to a crawl after some period of use. I moved it off the samba server
> and it now sits on a win98 machine humming along happily. It seems to
> be using btrieve 6.15 in a peer to peer mode. The application
> developer says they only support MS platforms but I'm sure I can move
> it to samba. Last time I tried I seemed to be having problems with
> file locks. Last time I googled there was a recognized issue out
> there with MS access files and btrieve files with oplocks. Anybody
> have any answers?
Look at the 'veto oplocks' directive - I just recently (maybe, three
days ago) was forced to examine stability and performance issues on an
Access based application, and found several helpful things. Oplocks are
good (fake oplocks are better, for read only files). Veto oplocks keep
the database from blowing up. The socket options that my distribution
uses by default are way off base - I would suggest commenting out the
socket options in your smb.conf altogether - these are supposedly set by
the kernel to optimal values anyway. Honestly, I wouldn't know about
that. I do know that NOT setting socket options in Debian Woody
performs better than setting them - especially where databases are
concerned.
|
|
