I am trying to share a directory in FC4. readable and writable to everyone.
The directory is /data/public : 2777 root:root. It is an ext3 partition.
This is my smb.conf:
[global] workgroup = HOMENETWORK netbios name = server server string = Samba Server security = SHARE guest account = guest hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.0/24 hosts deny = 192.168.0.1/24
[public] comment = Public Stuff path = /data/public read only = No guest ok - Yes
I am able to browse the server but when I open the share public I get an error that the directory doesn't exist.
The /data directory is a ext3 partition. I am able to share a directory in the / partition with no problems.
I am stumped. --Louis
Yes it was a typo.
Your suggestion didn't help. I know I have the conf file right because if I change the public share to something under / like /boot it works fine. But because /data is a separate partition I'm having trouble.
I that a typo? Guest ok - yes, should be an =
Set writable = yes in the public section and remove read only.
Hope that helps
I am trying to share a directory in FC4. readable and writable to everyone.
The directory is /data/public : 2777 root:root. It is an ext3 partition.
This is my smb.conf:
[global] workgroup = HOMENETWORK netbios name = server server string = Samba Server security = SHARE guest account = guest hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.0/24 hosts deny = 192.168.0.1/24
[public] comment = Public Stuff path = /data/public read only = No guest ok = Yes
I am able to browse the server but when I open the share public I get an error that the directory doesn't exist.
The /data directory is a ext3 partition. I am able to share a directory in the / partition with no problems.
I am stumped. --Louis
$ ls -ld /data/public drwxrwsrwx 3 root root 4096 Feb 14 19:05 /data/public
I don't think the fact it is on a separate partiotion should have anything to do with it. I take it the directory exists, and you haven't accidentally created a file called public in the data directory. If you go ls -ld /data/public it sees the directory ok?
Yes it was a typo.
Your suggestion didn't help. I know I have the conf file right because if I change the public share to something under / like /boot it works fine. But because /data is a separate partition I'm having trouble.
I that a typo? Guest ok - yes, should be an =
Set writable = yes in the public section and remove read only.
Hope that helps
I am trying to share a directory in FC4. readable and writable to everyone.
The directory is /data/public : 2777 root:root. It is an ext3 partition.
This is my smb.conf:
[global] workgroup = HOMENETWORK netbios name = server server string = Samba Server security = SHARE guest account = guest hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.0/24 hosts deny = 192.168.0.1/24
[public] comment = Public Stuff path = /data/public read only = No guest ok = Yes
I am able to browse the server but when I open the share public I get an error that the directory doesn't exist.
The /data directory is a ext3 partition. I am able to share a directory in the / partition with no problems.
I am stumped. --Louis
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 22:12 -0500, Louis E Garcia II wrote:
Yes it was a typo.
Your suggestion didn't help. I know I have the conf file right because if I change the public share to something under / like /boot it works fine. But because /data is a separate partition I'm having trouble.
My initial thought was that it would be an SELinux issue, which could be fixed by doing:
# chcon -R -t samba_share_t /data/public
(see "man samba_selinux")
but since you say it works for /boot I guess you've turned off SELinux.
Paul.
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 21:29 -0500, Louis E Garcia II wrote:
hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.0/24 hosts deny = 192.168.0.1/24
This seems peculiar. Allow a block of IPs (192.168.0.0/24), then deny a particular IP, but with a netmask? If you're just trying to block "192.168.0.1", then I'd take off the /24 from the end of it.
I presume that you've tried restarting the server after you've made changes to its configuration?
Is the /data partition mounted? You could try dismounting it, and using the /data directory in the / for a temporary test, and see if something on the same partition works with that Samba configuration.
On Friday 24 February 2006 02:29, Louis E Garcia II wrote:
I am trying to share a directory in FC4. readable and writable to everyone.
The directory is /data/public : 2777 root:root. It is an ext3 partition.
This is my smb.conf:
[global] workgroup = HOMENETWORK netbios name = server server string = Samba Server security = SHARE guest account = guest hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.0/24 hosts deny = 192.168.0.1/24
[public] comment = Public Stuff path = /data/public read only = No guest ok - Yes
I am able to browse the server but when I open the share public I get an error that the directory doesn't exist.
The /data directory is a ext3 partition. I am able to share a directory in the / partition with no problems.
I am stumped. --Louis
Thre may be some connection with a similar problem that I have. I get the same 'does not exist' message when I try to access 'homes'. I do have a public directory underneath my /home on the server, and I can access that, then go up a level to the /home/anne that should have been available as 'homes'.
I have come to the conclusion that there is something odd about passing the password. When I request Anne-Public I am asked for the password, after which I can move around easily. When I request 'homes' I am not asked for the password.
I know this is no solution for you, but I'm hoping that my £0.02 will trigger some useful ideas from someone else ;-)
Anne
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Friday 24 February 2006 02:29, Louis E Garcia II wrote:
I am trying to share a directory in FC4. readable and writable to everyone.
The directory is /data/public : 2777 root:root. It is an ext3 partition.
This is my smb.conf:
[global] workgroup = HOMENETWORK netbios name = server server string = Samba Server security = SHARE guest account = guest hosts allow = 127.0.0.1, 192.168.0.0/24 hosts deny = 192.168.0.1/24
[public] comment = Public Stuff path = /data/public read only = No guest ok - Yes
I am able to browse the server but when I open the share public I get an error that the directory doesn't exist.
The /data directory is a ext3 partition. I am able to share a directory in the / partition with no problems.
I am stumped. --Louis
Thre may be some connection with a similar problem that I have. I get the same 'does not exist' message when I try to access 'homes'. I do have a public directory underneath my /home on the server, and I can access that, then go up a level to the /home/anne that should have been available as 'homes'.
Is the username you are using on the client the same as the one on the server? If not, you might try mapping them in /etc/samba/smbusers, e.g.:
server-username = client-username anne = anne-wilson
with an appropriate "username map = /etc/samba/smbusers" directive in smb.conf of course.
Paul.
On Friday 24 February 2006 13:09, Paul Howarth wrote:
Is the username you are using on the client the same as the one on the server? If not, you might try mapping them in /etc/samba/smbusers, e.g.:
server-username = client-username anne = anne-wilson
with an appropriate "username map = /etc/samba/smbusers" directive in smb.conf of course.
The username is the same, whichever client I use. The password and UID may or may not be, depending on the client box.
Anne
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Friday 24 February 2006 13:09, Paul Howarth wrote:
Is the username you are using on the client the same as the one on the server? If not, you might try mapping them in /etc/samba/smbusers, e.g.:
server-username = client-username anne = anne-wilson
with an appropriate "username map = /etc/samba/smbusers" directive in smb.conf of course.
The username is the same, whichever client I use. The password and UID may or may not be, depending on the client box.
Anne
When using Samba, the UID and password on the client box are independent of the settings on the server. For that matter, if you are using encrypted passwords, the password for the user on the server may be different then the Samba password on the server. Also, if you do not have an entry for a user in smbpasswd, then the home directory for that user will not show up.
Mikkel
On Friday 24 February 2006 16:49, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Friday 24 February 2006 13:09, Paul Howarth wrote:
Is the username you are using on the client the same as the one on the server? If not, you might try mapping them in /etc/samba/smbusers, e.g.:
server-username = client-username anne = anne-wilson
with an appropriate "username map = /etc/samba/smbusers" directive in smb.conf of course.
The username is the same, whichever client I use. The password and UID may or may not be, depending on the client box.
Anne
When using Samba, the UID and password on the client box are independent of the settings on the server. For that matter, if you are using encrypted passwords, the password for the user on the server may be different then the Samba password on the server. Also, if you do not have an entry for a user in smbpasswd, then the home directory for that user will not show up.
Yes, I have an account in smbpasswd, and I can browse all the other shares. I can browse my own home directory if I go in via another share. It's just that my home directory does not show up in any browser.
Anne
Mikkel L. Ellertson:
When using Samba, the UID and password on the client box are independent of the settings on the server. For that matter, if you are using encrypted passwords, the password for the user on the server may be different then the Samba password on the server. Also, if you do not have an entry for a user in smbpasswd, then the home directory for that user will not show up.
Anne Wilson:
Yes, I have an account in smbpasswd, and I can browse all the other shares. I can browse my own home directory if I go in via another share. It's just that my home directory does not show up in any browser.
If you're talking about doing this with Windows and Linux, I would think that you'd need to be using the same username and password on the box that you're logged into, and the box running the samba server, for your home space to turn up in the browse list. When Windows browses what's available it supplies username and password for the current logon to the remote end. The remote end (Samba) returns what it thinks is suitable.
This also seems to be a simple way of snaffling up user credentials, just by putting a box on the same LAN and waiting for others to connect to you. Though I think it'd only be effective if you were using unencrypted passwords.
Yes, you can use different usernames and passwords, as far as I'm aware (I don't do this, so I haven't tested it), but I wouldn't expect browsing to work, only explicit connections/mounts (where you request something directly, and enter in username and password credentials).
On Saturday 25 February 2006 05:32, Tim wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson:
When using Samba, the UID and password on the client box are independent of the settings on the server. For that matter, if you are using encrypted passwords, the password for the user on the server may be different then the Samba password on the server. Also, if you do not have an entry for a user in smbpasswd, then the home directory for that user will not show up.
Anne Wilson:
Yes, I have an account in smbpasswd, and I can browse all the other shares. I can browse my own home directory if I go in via another share. It's just that my home directory does not show up in any browser.
If you're talking about doing this with Windows and Linux, I would think that you'd need to be using the same username and password on the box that you're logged into, and the box running the samba server, for your home space to turn up in the browse list. When Windows browses what's available it supplies username and password for the current logon to the remote end. The remote end (Samba) returns what it thinks is suitable.
Sort of - in win98 and earlier you could only login to a samba share with the login credentials that you were using on your own box. This isn't true of w2k or xp.
Actually, though, it's irrelevant at this point. Most of the connections are made linux to linux, so I need those working first. Once I'm happy with that I'll turn my attention to the sporadic windows connections.
This also seems to be a simple way of snaffling up user credentials, just by putting a box on the same LAN and waiting for others to connect to you. Though I think it'd only be effective if you were using unencrypted passwords.
I have been using samba connections for years, and the annouce service has always worked well.
My frustrations are definitely fedora-related. Every box on the lan has a public directory (and therefore every linux box has a samba service to control it). Konqueror's LAN browser can see the Mandriva boxes on the LAN, but not the Fedora ones or the Windows ones. The samba shares are working - they can be mounted manually. I simply want user-friendly browsing to work.
Anne
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 12:31 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
My frustrations are definitely fedora-related. Every box on the lan has a public directory (and therefore every linux box has a samba service to control it). Konqueror's LAN browser can see the Mandriva boxes on the LAN, but not the Fedora ones or the Windows ones. The samba shares are working - they can be mounted manually. I simply want user-friendly browsing to work.
Don't know if this would be double work for you, but why not setup NFS to use on the linux side?
On Sunday 26 February 2006 12:58, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 12:31 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
My frustrations are definitely fedora-related. Every box on the lan has a public directory (and therefore every linux box has a samba service to control it). Konqueror's LAN browser can see the Mandriva boxes on the LAN, but not the Fedora ones or the Windows ones. The samba shares are working - they can be mounted manually. I simply want user-friendly browsing to work.
Don't know if this would be double work for you, but why not setup NFS to use on the linux side?
It doesn't feel worth it, Mike. Samba can mount. Fish can mount. Why bother with a third protocol? I'll just set up desktop links to each mount, but I don't like that solution. I like a fairly clean desktop.
Anne
On Sunday 26 February 2006 13:15, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Sunday 26 February 2006 12:58, Mike Chambers wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 12:31 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
My frustrations are definitely fedora-related. Every box on the lan has a public directory (and therefore every linux box has a samba service to control it). Konqueror's LAN browser can see the Mandriva boxes on the LAN, but not the Fedora ones or the Windows ones. The samba shares are working - they can be mounted manually. I simply want user-friendly browsing to work.
Don't know if this would be double work for you, but why not setup NFS to use on the linux side?
It doesn't feel worth it, Mike. Samba can mount. Fish can mount. Why bother with a third protocol? I'll just set up desktop links to each mount, but I don't like that solution. I like a fairly clean desktop.
Just found the solution - the kde panel applet 'Network Folders' provides easy browsing, and all the available shares are correctly listed. Definitely more use-friendly, and I can keep my desktop clean ;-)
Anne
Mike Chambers:
Don't know if this would be double work for you, but why not setup NFS to use on the linux side?
Anne Wilson:
It doesn't feel worth it, Mike. Samba can mount. Fish can mount. Why bother with a third protocol? I'll just set up desktop links to each mount, but I don't like that solution. I like a fairly clean desktop.
I found the ability to do browsing somewhat of a problem. Only some things could do it. There'd always be some application that you'd want to open a file with, but not be able to because the remote file wasn't explicitly mounted onto the file system, but had been browsed to in one of the few applications that supported SMB.
If you're explictly mounting things (e.g. using /etc/fstab entries) then the protocol becomes less important to you. However, I found NFS to be quicker than SMB (for me, at least).
On Sunday 26 February 2006 14:07, Tim wrote:
I found the ability to do browsing somewhat of a problem. Only some things could do it. There'd always be some application that you'd want to open a file with, but not be able to because the remote file wasn't explicitly mounted onto the file system, but had been browsed to in one of the few applications that supported SMB.
If you're explictly mounting things (e.g. using /etc/fstab entries) then the protocol becomes less important to you. However, I found NFS to be quicker than SMB (for me, at least).
My main concerns are to provide an easy way to copy files onto the server for safe keeping, and to easily share files with the windows users, particularly since I often download files that can only be used with a windows box (not relevant, but it's computerised patterns for a sewing machine).
I'll see how it performs over the next day or two, but that applet looks as though it will be perfect for the job.
Anne
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 12:31 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
Actually, though, it's irrelevant at this point. Most of the connections are made linux to linux, so I need those working first. Once I'm happy with that I'll turn my attention to the sporadic windows connections.
I wonder why you're using Samba, then? It's not native to Linux, and you can have to jump through hoops to get proper file permissions, etc., set between server and client.
For Linux to Linux through Samba there are other extensions to it for that to work, but I only experimented with them once before deciding that NFS was less painful for me.
On Sunday 26 February 2006 14:04, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 12:31 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
Actually, though, it's irrelevant at this point. Most of the connections are made linux to linux, so I need those working first. Once I'm happy with that I'll turn my attention to the sporadic windows connections.
I wonder why you're using Samba, then? It's not native to Linux, and you can have to jump through hoops to get proper file permissions, etc., set between server and client.
Because the linux >< windows connections may be less frequent but they are still important, and I prefer just one tool to do it all if possible. And it is possible - I've done it for years.
For Linux to Linux through Samba there are other extensions to it for that to work, but I only experimented with them once before deciding that NFS was less painful for me.
-- (Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread)
So am I.
Anne
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 12:31 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Saturday 25 February 2006 05:32, Tim wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson:
When using Samba, the UID and password on the client box are independent of the settings on the server. For that matter, if you are using encrypted passwords, the password for the user on the server may be different then the Samba password on the server. Also, if you do not have an entry for a user in smbpasswd, then the home directory for that user will not show up.
Anne Wilson:
Yes, I have an account in smbpasswd, and I can browse all the other shares. I can browse my own home directory if I go in via another share. It's just that my home directory does not show up in any browser.
If you're talking about doing this with Windows and Linux, I would think that you'd need to be using the same username and password on the box that you're logged into, and the box running the samba server, for your home space to turn up in the browse list. When Windows browses what's available it supplies username and password for the current logon to the remote end. The remote end (Samba) returns what it thinks is suitable.
Sort of - in win98 and earlier you could only login to a samba share with the login credentials that you were using on your own box. This isn't true of w2k or xp.
Actually, though, it's irrelevant at this point. Most of the connections are made linux to linux, so I need those working first. Once I'm happy with that I'll turn my attention to the sporadic windows connections.
This also seems to be a simple way of snaffling up user credentials, just by putting a box on the same LAN and waiting for others to connect to you. Though I think it'd only be effective if you were using unencrypted passwords.
I have been using samba connections for years, and the annouce service has always worked well.
My frustrations are definitely fedora-related. Every box on the lan has a public directory (and therefore every linux box has a samba service to control it). Konqueror's LAN browser can see the Mandriva boxes on the LAN, but not the Fedora ones or the Windows ones. The samba shares are working - they can be mounted manually. I simply want user-friendly browsing to work.
---- The thing that promotes sanity in a networked environment like this is to use LDAP to unify everything so that there is consistency across the network in terms of uid's/gid's & passwords.
If you were to go to LDAP, you could unify the passwords so that the each 'posix' user's password were the same as their samba password to minimize confusion and more importantly, files they created on one system would have the same uid and gid values on another.
The point is by using the more complicated LDAP setup, you simplify everything else.
Craig
Tim wrote:
If you're talking about doing this with Windows and Linux, I would think that you'd need to be using the same username and password on the box that you're logged into, and the box running the samba server, for your home space to turn up in the browse list. When Windows browses what's available it supplies username and password for the current logon to the remote end. The remote end (Samba) returns what it thinks is suitable.
The password used has to match the Samba password, not the login password (/etc/passwd) on the server box. The Samba password and the login password do not have to be the same. (If you are using LDAP or using a domain controller to verify users, then things are different.)
This also seems to be a simple way of snaffling up user credentials, just by putting a box on the same LAN and waiting for others to connect to you. Though I think it'd only be effective if you were using unencrypted passwords.
With encrypted passwords, you can grab the password hash that is sent, and use a modified client to connect. This is because the same hash is sent every time you connect. It is also possible to find the password from the hash, but it is not easy.
Yes, you can use different usernames and passwords, as far as I'm aware (I don't do this, so I haven't tested it), but I wouldn't expect browsing to work, only explicit connections/mounts (where you request something directly, and enter in username and password credentials).
With programs like smb4k, you can specify the user name and password to use when browsing. They do not have to match your login password and user name. With later versions you can do the same. (It can be done with Windows 98, but setting the user name/password for a machine is a pain. It will ask you for one only if the default fails.)
Mikkel
Anne Wilson wrote:
Thre may be some connection with a similar problem that I have. I get the same 'does not exist' message when I try to access 'homes'. I do have a public directory underneath my /home on the server, and I can access that, then go up a level to the /home/anne that should have been available as 'homes'.
Just a thought: you're not trying to access the share \SERVER\homes rather than \SERVER\anne are you?
('homes' being a "virtual" share that maps to the client's username)
Paul.
On Friday 24 February 2006 13:30, Paul Howarth wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
Thre may be some connection with a similar problem that I have. I get the same 'does not exist' message when I try to access 'homes'. I do have a public directory underneath my /home on the server, and I can access that, then go up a level to the /home/anne that should have been available as 'homes'.
Just a thought: you're not trying to access the share \SERVER\homes rather than \SERVER\anne are you?
('homes' being a "virtual" share that maps to the client's username)
I think you are correct. If I set 'browseable = yes' then I see 'homes' in konqueror, but if I set it to no, then I don't see 'homes'. Either way, 'anne' does not show up. Section from smb.conf:
[homes] comment = Home Directories browseable = yes writeable = yes create mask = 770
Anne
-
Anne Wilson -
Craig White -
Louis Garcia -
Mike Chambers -
Mikkel -
Paul Howarth -
Tim