[ale] SAMBA problem solved! New problem . . .

[James P. Kinney III]

The list of OS level numbers is correct. There is also a timing thing
that occurs. Each machine will "announce" itself and force an election.
This happens periodically. The highest number wins. By setting the OS
level to 65 for the samba server, it will win against any other windows
OS. Unless the other OS is a real M$ server OS running as a PDC or BDC.
Then all sorts of problems occur! At that point, run the OS level on the
samba server down to 59 to let the M$ PDC always win.

On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 13:16, Greg wrote:
> 	I use 65 as the OS level on my SAMBA server, which is also set up as a PDC.
> Yes, there is a "browser election" for a "master server" on MS networks and
> unless you "force" this it happens either on a schedule or not at all.  All
> MS OS's are arbitrarily assigned a value.  From lowest to highest it follows
> some thing like Windows 98, Windows NT (or Win 2000 Pro), then Windows
> Server products.
> 
> 	I have never seen the problems you alluded to in #3 - either on a mixed
> system or on a windows system.  If not scheduled, then you have to "force"
> or actively look for other connections, otherwise you are the mercy of
> whenever a PC "announces" itself to the network.  I mean, how do you think
> one PC "finds" another without either the other PC announcing itself or the
> client PC pinging or requesting from the server PC?  Needless to say, much
> traffic can be generated by these "announcements" or browser elections on a
> windows system.  Just hook up ethereal and see it in all its M$ glory.
> 
> I am running a mixed (Win98 / Win 2000 Pro / OpenBSD / Linux) network w/ a
> SAMBA server and the order doesn't matter - & and I don't have any problems.
> When you set up shares on a MS system, however, you need to tell it to
> reconnect those shares at start-up or it will leave them unconnected.
> 
> Greg Canter
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ale-admin at ale.org [mailto:ale-admin at ale.org]On Behalf Of Jordi S.
> > Bunster
> > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 12:48 PM
> > To: ale at ale.org
> > Subject: Re: [ale] SAMBA problem solved! New problem . . .
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 11:43, ChangingLINKS.com wrote:
> >
> > > One would think that it would be common for Win boxes to be
> > shutdown and
> > > turned on around a Lin server. Does anyone else have this
> > problem? Is there a
> > > solution that will allow me to drop my Win boxes without losing network
> > > connectivity?
> >
> > I *think* (I might be wrong, I've not followed this thread) that there's
> > something in windows called the OS level. The one for the Samba server
> > (if it is going to play as a PDC) has to be higher than that of everyone
> > else. It is in the configuration file for samba.
> >
> > The thing is, I don't remember how high that is. :(
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jordi S. Bunster <j.bunster at earthlink.net>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ale mailing list
> > Ale at ale.org
> > http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
-- 
James P. Kinney III   \Changing the mobile computing world/
President and CEO      \          one Linux user         /
Local Net Solutions,LLC \           at a time.          /
770-493-8244             \.___________________________./

GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics) <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7 



 This is a digitally signed message part