[Samba] changing kickoff time
Carsten John
we moved our samba server to a new machine. This included changing the
samba version from 3.024 to 3.4.2 and changing the OS from Linux to
Opensolaris.
Samba was compiled from scratch. Passdb Backend is tdb.
After the upgrade everything works fine......except:
Some users can not login, due to an expired account.
Further investigation showed that the "Kickoff Time" of the affected
users is set to "Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:59:59 CET". All unaffected user
show up "never" for the Kickoff Parameter.
Is there a way to control the kickoff time via command line?
A quick grep through the sources showed up the "pdb_set_kickoff_time"
function in passdb.c, but the function seems only to be referenced by
pdb_ldap.c which does not help with our tdb backend.
Deleting und recreating the user would work, but forces us to reset the
passwords....
thx
Carsten
--
Max Planck Institut fuer marine Mikrobiologie
- Network Administration -
Celsiustr. 1
D-28359 Bremen
Tel.: +49 421 2028568
Fax.: +49 421 2028565
PGP public key:http://www.mpi-bremen.de/Carsten_John.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Brian
Checked up on my new 3.3.8 installation and found this after a vista
workstation was idle all day on the network
I forgot to save the smbstatus output but it was a long list of PIDs linked
to the workstation in question.
Also I restarted then stopped the server and all the processes stayed there.
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
12484 root 1 117 0 11388K 8080K CPU3 3 6:38 93.65% bzip2
546 root 1 51 0 3184K 988K select 3 70:47 12.60% syslogd
12558 root 1 98 0 14624K 5628K RUN 3 0:06 9.57% smbd
9540 root 1 98 0 14624K 5500K RUN 2 27:59 0.00% smbd
11658 root 1 98 0 14624K 5596K RUN 3 23:29 0.00% smbd
10785 root 1 98 0 14624K 5544K RUN 2 23:04 0.00% smbd
9836 root 1 102 0 14624K 5492K RUN 2 22:56 0.00% smbd
11076 root 1 98 0 14624K 5540K RUN 0 21:43 0.00% smbd
10495 root 1 98 0 14624K 5544K RUN 0 21:28 0.00% smbd
11979 root 1 97 0 14624K 5608K RUN 0 19:53 0.00% smbd
10183 root 1 97 0 14624K 5504K RUN 2 13:26 0.00% smbd
11472 root 1 97 0 14624K 5588K RUN 0 12:21 0.00% smbd
10328 root 1 97 0 14624K 5516K RUN 0 7:45 0.00% smbd
11385 root 1 99 0 14624K 5568K RUN 2 7:27 0.00% smbd
10730 root 1 98 0 14624K 5536K RUN 0 4:06 0.00% smbd
9472 root 1 98 0 14624K 5484K RUN 2 3:36 0.00% smbd
11932 root 1 98 0 14624K 5600K RUN 0 3:17 0.00% smbd
11609 root 1 98 0 14624K 5588K RUN 3 3:05 0.00% smbd
10085 root 1 99 0 14624K 5488K RUN 0 3:04 0.00% smbd
10129 root 1 98 0 14624K 5504K RUN 0 2:52 0.00% smbd
11029 root 1 98 0 14624K 5536K RUN 0 2:16 0.00% smbd
11904 root 1 98 0 14624K 5584K RUN 3 2:04 0.00% smbd
12246 root 1 98 0 14708K 5664K RUN 0 2:03 0.00% smbd
9454 root 1 99 0 14624K 5448K RUN 2 1:54 0.00% smbd
9172 root 1 100 0 14624K 5424K RUN 2 1:52 0.00% smbd
10441 root 1 98 0 14624K 5520K RUN 2 1:48 0.00% smbd
10475 root 1 97 0 14624K 5480K RUN 0 1:30 0.00% smbd
11340 root 1 98 0 14624K 5552K RUN 0 1:28 0.00% smbd
10420 root 1 97 0 14624K 5516K RUN 2 1:21 0.00% smbd
11309 root 1 98 0 14624K 5512K RUN 2 1:14 0.00% smbd
12207 root 1 97 0 14708K 5664K RUN 0 1:05 0.00% smbd
12195 root 1 98 0 14708K 5592K RUN 0 0:41 0.00% smbd
10175 root 1 97 0 14624K 5488K RUN 0 0:34 0.00% smbd
12220 root 1 97 0 14708K 5624K RUN 0 0:29 0.00% smbd
11377 root 1 97 0 14624K 5568K RUN 0 0:24 0.00% smbd
3797 root 1 44 0 8428K 2656K select 3 0:24 0.00% sshd
11326 root 1 97 0 14624K 5528K RUN 0 0:21 0.00% smbd
3867 root 1 44 0 8340K 4364K select 3 0:17 0.00% mc
9533 root 1 97 0 14624K 5448K RUN 0 0:12 0.00% smbd
11067 root 1 98 0 14624K 5496K RUN 0 0:09 0.00% smbd
11371 root 1 97 0 14624K 5528K RUN 2 0:09 0.00% smbd
9448 root 1 98 0 14624K 5448K RUN 2 0:04 0.00% smbd
5945 root 1 44 0 4672K 1624K select 3 0:04 0.00% ntpd
786 root 1 44 0 5876K 2440K select 0 0:02 0.00% sendmail
3742 root 1 44 0 8428K 2656K select 2 0:02 0.00% sshd
5732 bind 7 4 0 28916K 22612K kqread 2 0:01 0.00% named
5886 dhcpd 1 44 0 3128K 1656K select 0 0:01 0.00% dhcpd
3869 root 1 5 0 4396K 1780K ttyin 2 0:01 0.00% bash
796 root 1 8 0 3212K 960K nanslp 2 0:00 0.00% cron
790 smmsp 1 20 0 5876K 2192K pause 3 0:00 0.00% sendmail
3801 root 1 8 0 4396K 1732K wait 3 0:00 0.00% bash
3746 root 1 8 0 4396K 1652K wait 2 0:00 0.00% bash
12555 root 1 96 0 14428K 5428K select 2 0:00 0.00% smbd
12559 root 1 44 0 3496K 1496K CPU0 0 0:00 0.00% top
487 root 1 44 0 1888K 428K select 0 0:00 0.00% devd
780 root 1 44 0 5752K 2292K select 0 0:00 0.00% sshd
12549 root 1 50 0 9516K 3008K select 3 0:00 0.00% nmbd
12471 root 1 8 0 3128K 964K wait 0 0:00 0.00%
newsyslog
Ohh and I started getting this again.....this problem has come and gone
lately...its back now.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks
Brian
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
find service roo
Brian
[global]
workgroup = XNET2
server string = Samba Server
hosts allow = 10.0.2., 127.
guest account = guest
interfaces = dc0
log level = 2
log file = /var/log/samba/%m-samba.log
max log size = 500
time server = Yes
socket options = SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
security = user
passdb backend = tdbsam
dns proxy = no
load printers = no
printing = bsd
printcap name = /dev/null
disable spoolss = yes
wins support = Yes
# WINS Server - Tells the NMBD components of Samba to be a WINS Client
# Note: Samba can be either a WINS Server, or a WINS Client, but NOT
both
; wins server = w.x.y.z
#============================ Share Definitions
==============================
[homes]
comment = Home directory for %u on %h
browseable = no
writable = yes
path = /usr/home/%u/Documents
valid users = %S
[tmp]
comment = Temporary file space
path = /usr/samba-shares/tmp
read only = no
public = yes
[public]
comment = Public Directory, r/w all users, guest owns all files
path = /usr/samba-shares/public
public = yes
only guest = yes
writable = yes
printable = no
[share1]
comment = Share Directory No. 1, Writable only by group wheel members
path = /usr/samba-shares/file-server1
public = yes
writable = yes
printable = no
write list = @wheel
[share2]
comment = Share Directory No. 2, Writable only by group wheel members
path = /usr/samba-shares/file-server2
public = yes
writable = yes
printable = no
write list = @wheel
[share3]
comment = Share Directory No. 3, Writable only by group wheel members
path = /usr/samba-shares/file-server3
public = yes
writable = yes
printable = no
write list = @wheel
Matthew Dickinson
On 10/26/09 6:34 PM, "Brian" <bbayo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> Ohh and I started getting this again.....this problem has come and gone
> lately...its back now.
>
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
> Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: [2009/10/26 18:00:36, 0]
> smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
> Oct 26 18:00:36 oldjunk smbd[12268]: dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't
> find service roo
Likewise:
Situation:
I'm seeing lots (~500k per day) of log entries like:
smbd[13939]: itlab-pc06 (::ffff:10.51.51.103) couldn't find service it261
In this case, the last character of the request is truncated - it should be
it2610
I'm seeing the same/similar issue to
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2009-March/147277.html
And
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2009-October/150998.html
I've dismissed this over the last few weeks as a minor inconvenience, but
I'm now convinced that it's affecting the performance of the Windows client
machines that are connecting to it - a 30 second operation on local disk,
takes upwards of 5 mins over a network connection, generating thousands of
entries similar to the above.
Matthew
Brian
Just looked .... I'm getting 500K log every 12 seconds with log level 2. My
"new" server is a box with modern hardware and so forth and its spending 24%
processor time filling out logs.
John suggest 3.3.8 and I realized I was at 3.3.3 so I upgraded samba to
3.3.8 and got the same result!
So I have had samba version 3.0.something (older FBSD implementation, older
166 pentium) through 3.3.8 running (7.2 FBSD implementation with modern
hardware) and all of them are being flooded by vista. Ya ya I know...blame
Gates, but there must be a fix here some place?
The situation with 3.3.8 is the first time I noticed dozens of samba
processes spawned as a result. Earlier versions got spammed, but didn't
branch a bunch of processes.
thanks for your help in advance.
Brian
Brian
discuss a similar issue with not being able to find a service and in most
cases the error reports the service name truncated by one character. One
was reporting the service name with extra characters. These date back to
2003 and maybe earlier.
Some interesting discussions with some indicating a Windoze bug persisting
from Win2k thru WinXP (and now vista)
Others report it is a long standing samba bug since 2.x....who knows.
One common thing near as I can tell is solutions are not identified.
Many seem to ignore it, but the traffic and logs are putting quite a burden
on the system.
Again any thoughts are appreciated
thanks
Brian
http://www.webservertalk.com/message857789.html
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-networking-3/logs-filling-up-w
ith-smbdservice.cmakeconnection-couldnt-find-service-397227/
http://beau.org/pipermail/whitebox-users/2005-October/007173.html
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2005-October/112876.html
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2005-October/112878.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2003-October/023809.htm
Volker Lendecke
> Also, here is my config...
>
> [global]
> workgroup = XNET2
> server string = Samba Server
> hosts allow = 10.0.2., 127.
> guest account = guest
> interfaces = dc0
> log level = 2
> log file = /var/log/samba/%m-samba.log
> max log size = 500
> time server = Yes
> socket options = SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
> security = user
> passdb backend = tdbsam
> dns proxy = no
> load printers = no
> printing = bsd
> printcap name = /dev/null
> disable spoolss = yes
Maybe for some reason your client is unhappy with "disable
spoolss = yes"?
Volker
Jeremy Allison
>
>
>
> Just looked .... I'm getting 500K log every 12 seconds with log level 2. My
> "new" server is a box with modern hardware and so forth and its spending 24%
> processor time filling out logs.
>
> John suggest 3.3.8 and I realized I was at 3.3.3 so I upgraded samba to
> 3.3.8 and got the same result!
>
> So I have had samba version 3.0.something (older FBSD implementation, older
> 166 pentium) through 3.3.8 running (7.2 FBSD implementation with modern
> hardware) and all of them are being flooded by vista. Ya ya I know...blame
> Gates, but there must be a fix here some place?
>
> The situation with 3.3.8 is the first time I noticed dozens of samba
> processes spawned as a result. Earlier versions got spammed, but didn't
> branch a bunch of processes.
Log a bug at bugzilla.samba.org and attach a debug level 10 log
from one client and also a wireshark trace. The wireshark trace
is very important in order to determine if this is a client or
server bug.
Jeremy.
Brian
Volker
--
Matthew Dickinson
On 10/27/09 4:31 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 08:57:20PM -0500, Brian wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Just looked .... I'm getting 500K log every 12 seconds with log level 2. My
>> "new" server is a box with modern hardware and so forth and its spending 24%
>> processor time filling out logs.
>>
>> John suggest 3.3.8 and I realized I was at 3.3.3 so I upgraded samba to
>> 3.3.8 and got the same result!
>>
>> So I have had samba version 3.0.something (older FBSD implementation, older
>> 166 pentium) through 3.3.8 running (7.2 FBSD implementation with modern
>> hardware) and all of them are being flooded by vista. Ya ya I know...blame
>> Gates, but there must be a fix here some place?
>>
>> The situation with 3.3.8 is the first time I noticed dozens of samba
>> processes spawned as a result. Earlier versions got spammed, but didn't
>> branch a bunch of processes.
>
> Log a bug at bugzilla.samba.org and attach a debug level 10 log
> from one client and also a wireshark trace. The wireshark trace
> is very important in order to determine if this is a client or
> server bug.
>
> Jeremy.
Already done that :-)
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6782
Matthew
Jeremy Allison
>
> On 10/27/09 4:31 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 08:57:20PM -0500, Brian wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Just looked .... I'm getting 500K log every 12 seconds with log level 2. My
> >> "new" server is a box with modern hardware and so forth and its spending 24%
> >> processor time filling out logs.
> >>
> >> John suggest 3.3.8 and I realized I was at 3.3.3 so I upgraded samba to
> >> 3.3.8 and got the same result!
> >>
> >> So I have had samba version 3.0.something (older FBSD implementation, older
> >> 166 pentium) through 3.3.8 running (7.2 FBSD implementation with modern
> >> hardware) and all of them are being flooded by vista. Ya ya I know...blame
> >> Gates, but there must be a fix here some place?
> >>
> >> The situation with 3.3.8 is the first time I noticed dozens of samba
> >> processes spawned as a result. Earlier versions got spammed, but didn't
> >> branch a bunch of processes.
> >
> > Log a bug at bugzilla.samba.org and attach a debug level 10 log
> > from one client and also a wireshark trace. The wireshark trace
> > is very important in order to determine if this is a client or
> > server bug.
> >
> > Jeremy.
>
> Already done that :-)
>
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6782
Ah, ok. I see Valker already took a look at it and it
looks like a client problem. I'll also take a look (time
permitting).
Jeremy.
Brian
I will try and do the same at bugzilla
but for now a bit more information after some experimentation.
When homes share definition is removed I get:
[2009/10/27 17:23:33, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo
[2009/10/27 17:23:33, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service roo
[2009/10/27 17:23:33, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service root
[2009/10/27 17:23:33, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connection(1292)
dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149) couldn't find service root
This supports comments from other people that the client re-tries with the
correct name and then connects. I do not have issues connecting to my home
share. Maybe some lag sometimes...
When I make a share named "roo", the "can't find service" messages go away
and I get a visible "roo" share.
Also get the following from smbstatus when I have made no attempt to connect
to the "roo" share with explorer or whatever. This tells me the client is
purposely trying to connect to "roo" by itself.
Samba version 3.3.8
PID Username Group Machine
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6848 root wheel dadsdesktop (10.0.2.149)
Service pid machine Connected at
-------------------------------------------------------
roo 6848 dadsdesktop Tue Oct 27 18:55:56 2009
root 6848 dadsdesktop Tue Oct 27 18:55:56 2009
No locked files
Seems to me the client is the issue here...
Matthew Dickinson
On 10/27/09 6:32 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
> Ah, ok. I see Valker already took a look at it and it
> looks like a client problem. I'll also take a look (time
> permitting).
In that case, I'd really _love_ as much information to "prove" that as
possible - since we've got support from MS, I plan on raising this as an
issue with MS support.
If it's hard to "prove" it's a Windows "feature", I can see the conversation
going:
"it's a Samba bug",
and you saying "it's an MS bug"
and them saying "it's a Samba bug"
and
and
and
:-)
Matthew
Jeremy Allison
>
> On 10/27/09 6:32 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
> > Ah, ok. I see Valker already took a look at it and it
> > looks like a client problem. I'll also take a look (time
> > permitting).
>
> In that case, I'd really _love_ as much information to "prove" that as
> possible - since we've got support from MS, I plan on raising this as an
> issue with MS support.
>
> If it's hard to "prove" it's a Windows "feature", I can see the conversation
> going:
>
> "it's a Samba bug",
> and you saying "it's an MS bug"
> and them saying "it's a Samba bug"
> and
> and
> and
>
> :-)
No, we're not that bad. After all, if it works to Windows
but not to Samba then by definition it's a Samba bug :-)
Matthew Dickinson
Which got me to thinking:
The thread http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2005-October/112876.html
In particular the last post
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2005-October/112929.html
So... new config item:
w2k client workaround = yes
iff requested share does not exist, but a single share with the
same name plus one character does exist, connect to that instead.
Matthew
Brian
post I tried a workaround by creating a share with the last character
clipped off (in my case "roo"). Great news, the attempt to connect msgs
are now gone, but my server is still being spammed
I did some stats on my client with a "net statistics workstation"
command and came up with:
Bytes received 137,514 bytes/sec
Server Message Blocks (SMBs) received 1,302 SMB blocks/sec
Bytes transmitted 95,329 bytes/sec
Server Message Blocks (SMBs) transmitted 1,302 SMB blocks/sec
So the error msgs are gone, but the server is getting spammed with
greater than 1000 SMB msg blocks per second while IDLE! I don't
know what is "normal" but 1300 / sec sounds like a LOT!
smbd is being a trooper though as it didn't drop one of them!
Here is what top shows:
last pid: 7417; load averages: 6.22, 6.27, 6.
39 processes: 7 running, 32 sleeping
CPU: 4.0% user, 0.0% nice, 29.5% system, 1.4% interrupt, 65.0% idle
Mem: 36M Active, 606M Inact, 183M Wired, 110M Buf, 162M Free
Swap: 1902M Total, 1902M Free
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
6848 root 1 66 0 14652K 8128K CPU0 2 33:00 30.37% smbd
1497 root 1 104 0 14600K 7224K RUN 1 34:35 0.00% smbd
863 root 1 107 0 14620K 7304K RUN 2 22:08 0.00% smbd
1408 root 1 104 0 14600K 7224K RUN 1 7:51 0.00% smbd
6552 root 1 101 0 14640K 7984K RUN 1 3:00 0.00% smbd
1401 root 1 104 0 14600K 7224K RUN 1 0:25 0.00% smbd
5628 root 1 44 0 8340K 5316K select 1 0:11 0.00% mc
756 root 1 44 0 4672K 2276K select 2 0:04 0.00% ntpd
7126 root 1 44 0 3496K 1748K CPU1 1 0:03 0.00% top
5588 root 1 44 0 8428K 3892K select 1 0:02 0.00% sshd
793 root 1 44 0 5876K 3444K select 0 0:02 0.00% sendmail
620 bind 7 4 0 27892K 22424K kqread 0 0:02 0.00% named
706 dhcpd 1 44 0 3128K 2040K select 1 0:01 0.00% dhcpd
6839 root 1 44 0 9540K 4360K select 0 0:01 0.00% nmbd
5630 root 1 8 0 4396K 2264K wait 1 0:01 0.00% bash
552 root 1 44 0 3184K 1228K select 0 0:00 0.00% syslogd
804 root 1 8 0 3212K 1272K nanslp 2 0:00 0.00% cron
5593 root 1 8 0 4396K 2260K wait 0 0:00 0.00% bash
797 smmsp 1 20 0 5876K 3232K pause 2 0:00 0.00% sendmail
6845 root 1 96 0 14428K 7804K select 1 0:00 0.00% smbd
847 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 2 0:00 0.00% getty
787 root 1 44 0 5752K 3528K select 1 0:00 0.00% sshd
846 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 1 0:00 0.00% getty
852 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 2 0:00 0.00% getty
851 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 2 0:00 0.00% getty
850 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 3 0:00 0.00% getty
849 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 1 0:00 0.00% getty
848 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 0 0:00 0.00% getty
824 root 1 96 0 3240K 1356K select 2 0:00 0.00% inetd
5543 root 1 5 0 3184K 1092K ttyin 1 0:00 0.00% getty
6847 root 1 96 0 14428K 7744K select 2 0:00 0.00% smbd
493 root 1 45 0 1888K 564K select 2 0:00 0.00% devd
147 root 1 20 0 1380K 804K pause 2 0:00 0.00%
adjkerntz
-----Original Message-----
From: samba-...@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-...@lists.samba.org]
On Behalf Of Matthew Dickinson
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:30 PM
To: Jeremy Allison
Cc: sa...@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
Jeremy Allison
> Sorry I don't think so....basically as you can see in my earlier
> post I tried a workaround by creating a share with the last character
> clipped off (in my case "roo"). Great news, the attempt to connect msgs
> are now gone, but my server is still being spammed
> I did some stats on my client with a "net statistics workstation"
> command and came up with:
>
> Bytes received 137,514 bytes/sec
> Server Message Blocks (SMBs) received 1,302 SMB blocks/sec
> Bytes transmitted 95,329 bytes/sec
> Server Message Blocks (SMBs) transmitted 1,302 SMB blocks/sec
>
> So the error msgs are gone, but the server is getting spammed with
> greater than 1000 SMB msg blocks per second while IDLE! I don't
> know what is "normal" but 1300 / sec sounds like a LOT!
> smbd is being a trooper though as it didn't drop one of them!
>
>
> Here is what top shows:
>
> last pid: 7417; load averages: 6.22, 6.27, 6.
> 39 processes: 7 running, 32 sleeping
> CPU: 4.0% user, 0.0% nice, 29.5% system, 1.4% interrupt, 65.0% idle
> Mem: 36M Active, 606M Inact, 183M Wired, 110M Buf, 162M Free
> Swap: 1902M Total, 1902M Free
>
> PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND
> 6848 root 1 66 0 14652K 8128K CPU0 2 33:00 30.37% smbd
That's crazy. Collect a wireshark trace or up the smbd log
to level 10 for a few seconds using smbcontrol and tell me
what the client is doing to spam the server like that ?
Jeremy.
Brian
http://66.190.9.142/vista-spam-2.log
Here is a few seconds worth in these two files. This is with the
workaround in place where I have a "roo" share setup on the server
so you will not see all those can't find service messages.
I have not had time to look at them. Not sure if I could pick anything
out of them or not.
The more I investigate the more I am convinced it is a client issue..
Another interesting tidbit of information. Last night I setup a new account
on the bsd box (non wheel account) and a matching account on the vista
box (non administrator) and after a quick try last night it would appear
the problem goes away (or had not started yet). I will duplicate
that experiment to make sure.
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:54 AM
To: Brian
Cc: sa...@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
Brian
I know my web server is inaccessible, but let's move on from that...
that is an issue for another day.
At a log level 3, currently, I get the following sequence repeating
itself about 164 times per second. In that sequence it appears to
be closing 2 directories with incrementing fnum's
So what is smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343) close directory fnum=xxxx?
that is about the only thing that changes besides the
transaction number.
I'm not sure where the pattern starts/stop but the following is
CLEARLY repeating itself at a high rate of speed.
Brian
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/trans2.c:call_trans2findfirst(1926)
call_trans2findfirst: dirtype = 16, maxentries = 1366,
close_after_first=1, close_if_end = 1 requires_resume_key = 1
level = 0x104, max_data_bytes = 16384
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/dir.c:dptr_create(518)
creating new dirptr 256 for path ./, expect_close = 1
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801277 of length 92 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801278 of length 45 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343)
close directory fnum=7062
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801279 of length 92 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801280 of length 45 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343)
close directory fnum=7063
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801281 of length 112 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBtrans2 (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/trans2.c:call_trans2findfirst(1926)
call_trans2findfirst: dirtype = 16, maxentries = 1366,
close_after_first=1, close_if_end = 1 requires_resume_key = 1
level = 0x104, max_data_bytes = 16384
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/dir.c:dptr_create(518)
creating new dirptr 256 for path ./, expect_close = 1
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801282 of length 92 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801283 of length 45 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5d030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343)
close directory fnum=7064
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801284 of length 92 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBntcreateX (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/sec_ctx.c:set_sec_ctx(324)
setting sec ctx (0, 0) - sec_ctx_stack_ndx = 0
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801285 of length 45 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBclose (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343)
close directory fnum=7065
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1576)
Transaction 801286 of length 112 (0 toread)
[2009/10/28 15:46:50, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(1393)
switch message SMBtrans2 (pid 11443) conn 0x20c5c030
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:41 PM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: samba-...@lists.samba. On Behalf Of Brian
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:09 AM
>
> > http://66.190.9.142/vista-spam-1.log
> >
> > http://66.190.9.142/vista-spam-2.log
> >
> > Here is a few seconds worth in these two files. This is with the
> > workaround in place where I have a "roo" share setup on the server
> > so you will not see all those can't find service messages.
>
> I can't get access to these files. I'm getting "connection timed out".
>
> > The more I investigate the more I am convinced it is a client issue..
> >
> > Another interesting tidbit of information. Last night I setup a new
> account
> > on the bsd box (non wheel account) and a matching account on the
> vista
> > box (non administrator) and after a quick try last night it would
> appear
> > the problem goes away (or had not started yet). I will duplicate
> > that experiment to make sure.
>
> Please keep the list up to date with your progress.
Jeremy Allison
> OK Progress, MAYBE!?
>
> I know my web server is inaccessible, but let's move on from that...
> that is an issue for another day.
>
> At a log level 3, currently, I get the following sequence repeating
> itself about 164 times per second. In that sequence it appears to
> be closing 2 directories with incrementing fnum's
>
> So what is smbd/reply.c:reply_close(4343) close directory fnum=xxxx?
>
> that is about the only thing that changes besides the
> transaction number.
>
> I'm not sure where the pattern starts/stop but the following is
> CLEARLY repeating itself at a high rate of speed.
Not enough detail. Get a log level 10 plus a wireshark trace please.
Matthew Dickinson
On 10/28/09 6:21 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
> Not enough detail. Get a log level 10 plus a wireshark trace please.
>
> Jeremy.
Since it might be the same problem I'm having, I have those available on the
bugzilla page ( https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6782)
Matthew
Jeremy Allison
>
>
>
> On 10/28/09 6:21 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
> > Not enough detail. Get a log level 10 plus a wireshark trace please.
> >
> > Jeremy.
>
> Since it might be the same problem I'm having, I have those available on the
> bugzilla page ( https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6782)
No, your trace doesn't look anything like his problem (I just
looked). Your trace shows a DFS referral request for a truncated
network path, not a repeating findfirst pattern.
Jeremy.
Brian
in place where I inserted a "roo" share. It may change things
because I am not getting that recurring " couldn't find service
roo" anymore which was looking for a truncated service name.
DFS problems does however sound like a different ball game...IDK
I will make that level 10 and wireshark trace available....
Can I attach those to an email to the samba list or should
I post to bugzilla?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:17 PM
> To: Matthew Dickinson
> Cc: Jeremy Allison; Brian; sa...@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
>
Jeremy Allison
> Not that a matters, remember I have my non-working work around
> in place where I inserted a "roo" share. It may change things
> because I am not getting that recurring " couldn't find service
> roo" anymore which was looking for a truncated service name.
> DFS problems does however sound like a different ball game...IDK
If you're not using DFS then try setting "host msdfs = no" and
rebooting the clients. I'm guessing this may make a difference.
Brian
the windoze and bsd side which didn't have all the links back
and forth. That effort with the new user didn't produce all
the spamming.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samba-...@lists.samba.org On Behalf Of Brian
>
> Well don't hold me to it, but I may have solved it!
>
> Was trying to reproduce it but that failed....grrr
> Will keep trying after all this...for the benefit of all
>
> anywho....here is / was the thing
>
> my homes is set to
>
> [homes]
> comment = Home directory for %u on %h
> browseable = no
> writable = yes
> path = /usr/home/%u/Documents
> valid users = %S
>
> I had /usr/home/root as a symbolic link pointing back to
> /root
>
> then I had /root/Documents as a symbolic link pointing
> to /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/root/Documents
>
> should be ok? at least I thought so
>
> well so far so good (crosses fingers) I deleted the
> /usr/home/root symbolic link to /root and made a real
> directory there named root, then I created a symbolic link
> there named Documents to /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/Documents
>
> ohh and if ya missed it I moved
> /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/root/Documents
> to /usr/samba-shares/file-server3/Documents
>
> and also somewhere in there I renamed "old root home" to "old-root-
> home"
>
> BAMMM near as I can tell no one is spamming any more
>
> Yawns! time will tell if I fixed it, but would sure like to reproduce
> it!
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:33 PM
> > To: Brian
> > Cc: sa...@lists.samba.org; 'Jeremy Allison'; 'Matthew Dickinson'
> > Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
> >
Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:33 PM
> To: Brian
> Cc: sa...@lists.samba.org; 'Jeremy Allison'; 'Matthew Dickinson'
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
>
Matthew Dickinson
On 10/28/09 11:33 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
> If you're not using DFS then try setting "host msdfs = no" and
> rebooting the clients. I'm guessing this may make a difference.
>
> Jeremy.
This hasn't made any difference for me, I'm still getting the "couldn't find
serviced" truncated message
Matthew
Jeremy Allison
>
> On 10/28/09 11:33 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> > If you're not using DFS then try setting "host msdfs = no" and
> > rebooting the clients. I'm guessing this may make a difference.
> >
> > Jeremy.
>
> This hasn't made any difference for me, I'm still getting the "couldn't find
> serviced" truncated message
Did you reboot the client ? Until you do it'll still think
the Samba server is a dfs host.
Jeremy.
Matthew Dickinson
On 10/29/09 4:20 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Did you reboot the client ? Until you do it'll still think
> the Samba server is a dfs host.
The one client I tested was rebooted (it affects all of the 50 or so client
machines that I run) - I'll look tomorrow into disabling DFS via group
policy also on the client side (if that's possible even).
Matthew
Brian
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6862
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian [mailto:bbayo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:27 AM
> To: 'sa...@lists.samba.org'
> Cc: 'Jeremy Allison'
> Subject: RE: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
>
> Well, it was all a delusion. The problem is not fixed - it has
> returned. I have attached to this email 3 files with level 10 logs.
> I'm not sure if the attachments will pass to the samba list or not, but
> I will try. If not I will resend with the content in the email.
>
> the files are:
>
> "smbd start to first rep"
>
> is the log from the time the smdb process restarts until the appearance
> of the first loop repetition.
>
> "rep 1"
>
> is the log of first repetition of things after the server has
> initialized and the session established with the client.
>
> "rep 2"
>
> is the basically the same as the rep1
>
> it goes on and on.....
>
>
> > No, your trace doesn't look anything like his problem (I just
> looked).
> > Your trace shows a DFS referral request for a truncated network path,
> > not a repeating findfirst pattern.
> >
> > Jeremy.
>
> Jeremy, if you take a look at the logs (lvl 10 this time) you will see
> that the first reference to the truncated service name (roo) occurs in
> conjunction with dfs...so I postulate that it is the same problem Matt
> is having.
>
> Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian [mailto:bbayo...@charter.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:27 AM
> To: 'sa...@lists.samba.org'
> Cc: 'Jeremy Allison'
> Subject: RE: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
>
> Well, it was all a delusion. The problem is not fixed - it has
> returned. I have attached to this email 3 files with level 10 logs.
> I'm not sure if the attachments will pass to the samba list or not, but
> I will try. If not I will resend with the content in the email.
>
> the files are:
>
> "smbd start to first rep"
>
> is the log from the time the smdb process restarts until the appearance
> of the first loop repetition.
>
> "rep 1"
>
> is the log of first repetition of things after the server has
> initialized and the session established with the client.
>
> "rep 2"
>
> is the basically the same as the rep1
>
> it goes on and on.....
>
>
> > No, your trace doesn't look anything like his problem (I just
> looked).
> > Your trace shows a DFS referral request for a truncated network path,
> > not a repeating findfirst pattern.
> >
> > Jeremy.
>
> Jeremy, if you take a look at the logs (lvl 10 this time) you will see
> that the first reference to the truncated service name (roo) occurs in
> conjunction with dfs...so I postulate that it is the same problem Matt
> is having.
>
> [2009/10/30 19:31:29, 10] smbd/trans2.c:call_trans2getdfsreferral(7325)
> call_trans2getdfsreferral
> [2009/10/30 19:31:29, 10] smbd/msdfs.c:parse_dfs_path(108)
> parse_dfs_path: temp = |OLDJUNK\roo| after trimming \'s [2009/10/30
> 19:31:29, 10] smbd/msdfs.c:parse_dfs_path(133)
> parse_dfs_path: hostname: OLDJUNK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: samba-...@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-
Brian
I don't understand your comment
I think you said
You meant message posted on 10/31/09 with subject "[Samba] Lots of smbd
processes and connections?"
If that is accurate, then yes, I ws referring to that post
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Helmut Hullen [mailto:Hul...@t-online.de]
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:08 AM
> To: bbayo...@charter.net
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes and connections?
>
> Hallo, Brian,
>
> Du meintest am 31.10.09 zum Thema Re: [Samba] Lots of smbd processes
> and connections?:
> >> 25) call_trans2getdfsreferral
> Don't top post - please!
> Don't full quote - please! (My full quote is just a bad example)
> Thank you!
>
>
> Viele Gruesse!
> Helmut
Brian
> dads-pc (10.0.2.124) couldn't find service roo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dickinson [mailto:matt-...@alpha345.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:37 PM
> On 10/28/09 6:21 PM, "Jeremy Allison" <j...@samba.org> wrote:
> > Not enough detail. Get a log level 10 plus a wireshark trace please.
> >
> > Jeremy.
>
> Since it might be the same problem I'm having, I have those available
> on the
> bugzilla page ( https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6782)
>
> Matthew
Problem solved / culprit found!
Behavior in question:
The last character of the service name is truncated and couldn't find
service
First off, this behavior is pretty well documented....it even appears noted
as an odd behavior in a MS White Paper. Normally not a big deal as MS
clients
would provide a few requests with the truncated service name the correct
itself.
For example you can get a Windoze client to repeat the situation by
requesting
properties of a share from explorer and it will result in 3 or 4 truncated
service
name requests.
My problem was the client was spamming the server with > 1000 requests / sec
flooding logs and bogging down the server.
My situation was related to resident software on the client called:
CyberLink Media Libray
HP TouchSmart
HP MediaSmart
I think they are all basically the same product with different names
One of these processes was spamming the server looking for media I suspect.
I uninstalled it and the spamming stopped.
In particular the problem resided with a process call CLMLSvc.exe. Once
killed
the spamming went away.
Matt, I would check you clients for similar software.
Cheers
Brian
Matthew Dickinson
>
>
> Problem solved / culprit found!
>
> Behavior in question:
>
> The last character of the service name is truncated and couldn't find
> service
>
> First off, this behavior is pretty well documented....it even appears noted
> as an odd behavior in a MS White Paper. Normally not a big deal as MS
> clients
> would provide a few requests with the truncated service name the correct
> itself.
Could you provide a link to the whitepaper please?
> My situation was related to resident software on the client called:
>
> CyberLink Media Libray
> HP TouchSmart
> HP MediaSmart
>
> Matt, I would check you clients for similar software.
I don't have any of these installed.
If I access the same files from a Windows server, then the performance is as
expected, when accessed using my samba server, it's causing problems and is
really slow.
Matthew
Brian
>> My situation was related to resident software on the client called:
>>
>> CyberLink Media Libray
>> HP TouchSmart
>> HP MediaSmart
>>
>> Matt, I would check you clients for similar software.
>I don't have any of these installed.
Well, possibly try killing processes one at a time until the spamming stops.
There maybe other packages that are out there doing a similar thing.
Did you ever get anywhere with MS support?