Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 01 Mar 2001 17:10:12 +1100
From:      Andrew Johns <johnsa@kpi.com.au>
To:        samba@us5.samba.org
Cc:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Mult Samba incarnations on aliased IPs
Message-ID:  <3A9DE7C4.50A816D7@kpi.com.au>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

Please CC: me in responses.

I'm trying to reduce the number of shares on a machine to less than 13
(currently there are 21 printers shared off it - all networked HP's - I
just want to get rid of that infernal JetDirect junk).

It seems that many of our Win95 clients crash regularly when accessing
printers and I read (somewhere) that DOS (under Win95) can't resolve more
than 13 shares properly (many of the machines run a DOS-based app under
Win95).

This I have proven:
     net view \\samba
returns the typically useful error: "Error:There is more information
available".

Manually specifying the share name to use fixes it - but machines still
crash regularly when attempting to print anything (even Windows apps).

I'm attempting to share the printers across two IP addresses and use the
-s option to smbd to limit access to the shares via either one IP address
or the other.  But there is no go.  Whichever one I run first gets the
shares and the second one to run disappears without ever binding to the
port.

I would use two ethernet cards, but they're out of switch ports as it
is....

Other info:
Samba version 2.0.6 on FreeBSD version 4.0-20000516-STABLE

smb.conf.1 and smb.conf.2 have interfaces set correctly (I believe) and
'bind interfaces only = yes'

smb.conf.1
    interface = 192.168.90.16/24

smb.conf.2
    interface = 192.168.90.25/32

ed0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        inet 192.168.90.16 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.90.255
        inet 192.168.90.25 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.90.25

I have read (from mining the archives) that the second one will fail due
to the broadcast address - is this what is causing my problem and if so,
is it possible to work around (this will be the same even if I put two
ethernet cards in, unless I rearrange half the entire network to change
the network addresses).

--

Regards

********************************************************************
Andrew Johns BSc
Analyst
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

johnsa@kpi.com.au

Member, System Administrators Guild of Australia

NOTE:The above email address will be changing in the near future to
     reflect our new employer.
********************************************************************
FreeBSD - The power to serve
********************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
email by anyone else is unauthorized.

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance
on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
********************************************************************



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A9DE7C4.50A816D7>