We are currently under develop of small server using linux for many function like web serveice, mail service, groupware and so on. And we resently have problems for directory share when upgrade samba 2.2.7 to 3.0.5. I tried 3.0.8 just min. ago and had same result. If the folder has permission for everyone, there is no problems. means folder name can be found on windows network and possibly accessed. But if the folder has no permission for everyone such as only one or some of people has access permission, this folder is not accessible even if I have permisson to access. It's like I made own folder and cannot access. Also after few time sometimes folder can be accessible if the windows network panel is not turned off. Once log off my windows It happens again. appear and disappear again and again.. Using Samba ver 2.2.7 and 2.2.12, no problems but if workgroup or windows log in name is used by 2 byte character (Korean and Japanese) is not accessible. Using Samba 3.0.x, no problmes for that whether it Korean or Japanese.. Starting 3.0.x samba support uni-code that we really have to use higer than 3.0.x version. Do you think it is a bug of samba? or my smb.conf has problems? Here I attached smb.conf for korean [global] dos charset = cp949 unix charset = cp949 display charset = cp949 workgroup = workgroup server string = Samba on %h encrypt passwords = Yes smb passwd file = /etc/samba/smbpasswd guest account = beatguest map to guest = Bad User log level = 3 log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log max log size = 50 socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192 os level = 64 dns proxy = No level2 oplocks = Yes security = user create mask = 0765 force create mode = 020 directory mask = 0775 force directory mode = 0775 delete readonly = Yes include = /etc/samba/smb.conf.%U All Users created on web pages using Apache If samba 3.0.x cannot solve this problems I have to use lower version even if uni-code is not supported. I have tried to find an answer surfing on web and asked every linux site but no one gave me an answer..
pleas retest 3.0.11 and reopen if the bug still exists. If you reopen the bug, please provide more details to be able to reproduce this. I'm a little confused by the original report.
(In reply to comment #1) > pleas retest 3.0.11 and reopen if the bug still exists. If you > reopen the bug, please provide more details to be able to > reproduce this. I'm a little confused by the original report. using parameter as below ; max protocol = LANMAN2 - win9x possibly access whole folder but cannot create the folder with 2byte name (korean or japanese) - win2k, xp, 2003 possibly access with no problems. max protocol = NT1 - win9x possibly access with no problems. even can create korean or japanese named folder. - win2k, xp, 2003 has still same problems such as creating own folder and cannot access. Tested 3.0.10 and 3.0.11
Sorry for the short details. As I'm a newbee of Linux, this is all I can explain.. Hope to find any parameter that gives protocol by OS.. such as LANMAN2 protocol for win2k or above, and NT1 protocol for win9x. I have printed whole man page of smb.conf but couldn't find it..
ok. Couple fo questions. Why are you setting the protocol parameter at all ? And why are you not using the default of utf-8 for the unix charset ?
(In reply to comment #4) > ok. Couple fo questions. Why are you setting the protocol > parameter at all ? And why are you not using the default > of utf-8 for the unix charset ? Thanks for fast reply. I have tried 2 kinds of parameter setting as below but not working.. max protocol = NT1 min protocol = CORE In this case, win2k, xp, 2003 has problems as I explained as above. Another one is as below ; max protocol = LANMAN2 min protocol = CORE In this case, win9x shows strange character folder name even if folder name using english. Not only utf-8 but also euc-kr for the unix charset has been tried and both shows strange character folder name on all situation (win9x to win2003) Is there any other way to separate protocols for win9x and win2k above? I guess bug report 1867 is also simillar problems with mine..
please retest against 3.0.21a. Thanks.