Samba What a struggle

[Chris Botha]

Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but with no hope. It refuses me to access the server.

The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username to grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that I should look at?

Thank you in advance.

Chris

[Jean-Rene Cormier]

Did you enable password encryption and set a password for your user?

Jean-Rene Cormier

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 13:42, Chris Botha wrote:
> Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I
> work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but
> with no hope. It refuses me to access the server.
>
> The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with
> unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username
> to grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that
> I should look at?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Chris

[Gerry Doris]

> Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I
> work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but with
> no hope. It refuses me to access the server.
>
> The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with
> unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username to
> grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that I
> should look at?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Chris

You might want to post you smb.conf file for folks to check?

Gerry

[Bart Kalita]

Chris Botha wrote:
> Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I 
> work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but 
> with no hope. It refuses me to access the server.
>
> The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with 
> unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username 
> to grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that 
> I should look at?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Chris

Give Webmin  (  http://www.webmin.com  )  a go

Ii sorted all the problems for me  including apache,  mysql,  proftp  
and firewall.

[Ryan Duff]

I downloaded and installed webmin and went through the configuration, but I 
think I'm still missing something. My setup is FC1 with a mounted fat32 
partition that has all my mp3's on it shared out as "music". Before I setup 
webmin when I went to network neighborhood on my windoze machine it denied 
me access to the linux box. Now it gives me access and shows the shares but 
sill denies me access to the share. The users/passwords on all my computers 
are the same. I just can't figure out what setting I'm missing in the samba 
config part of webmin.

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:30:48 +0000, Bart Kalita  wrote:
> Chris Botha wrote:
> > Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I 
> > work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but with 
> > no hope. It refuses me to access the server.
> >
> > The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with 
> > unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username to 
> > grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that I 
> > should look at?
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Give Webmin  (  http://www.webmin.com  )  a go
>
> Ii sorted all the problems for me  including apache,  mysql,  proftp  and 
> firewall.

[Daniel Stonier]

Im having problems also, in particular with sharing a a printer on the 
linux box that is running the samba server. Ive done this before with rh8 
and the lp printing system, but I can't for the life of me get the printer 
to share on fc1 with cups. No problem sharing drives/directories though, 
just problems with the printer. Has anybody managed to get this going and 
if so would they mind if they emailed me an example of their smb.conf and 
cupsd.conf files?

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:42:56 +0200, Chris Botha  
wrote:
> Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I 
> work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but with 
> no hope. It refuses me to access the server.
>
> The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with 
> unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username to 
> grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that I 
> should look at?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Chris

Did you make sure you set an smbpassword for the user? (/usr/bin/smbpasswd)

Cheers,
Daniel

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 03.03.2004 schrieb Chris Botha um 18:42:
> Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but with no hope. It refuses me to access the server.
>
> The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username to grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that I should look at?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Chris

You may post your smb.conf.
Did you add your samba user(s) with smbpasswd?
What does "smbclient -L localhost" tell you?

Alexander

[mjwestkamper]

Here is a suggestion...

Do a simple setup and make sure everything works then add security/etc as
nesessary

/etc/samba/smb.conf

workgroup = WORKGROUP
hosts allow = 127. 192.168.1. < this should limit to your local subnet, if
you don't know what that is then leave it commented out>
security = share

host

[testshare]
 comments = test share
 path = <some directory that is already created, full pathname from root>
 public = yes
 writable = yes
 create mask = 0777

then

service smb start

or

service smb restart

good luck

-----Original Message-----
  From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
Behalf Of Chris Botha
  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:43 PM
  To: [e-mail]
  Subject: Samba What a struggle

Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I
work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but with no
hope. It refuses me to access the server.

The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with
unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username to
grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that I should
look at?

Thank you in advance.

Chris

[Andrew Robinson]

Chris Botha wrote:
> Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I 
> work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but with 
> no hope. It refuses me to access the server.
>
> The things that I set was : Workgroup, server string, password with 
> unix=yes, etc. Well I cant get it to ask for my password and username to 
> grant me access to the server. Got any suggestions or settings that I 
> should look at?

I had a similar problem when trying to set up Samba. I needed to 
configure iptables to allow smb traffic to my server. Here are the 
settings I have now:

# Samba access
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --sport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT

I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to get Samba to 
work. However, this works for me.

Hope this helps.

Andrew Robinson

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 03.03.2004 schrieb Andrew Robinson um 20:51:
> # Samba access
> -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
> -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --sport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
> -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
> -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
> -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
>
> I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to get Samba to 
> work. However, this works for me.

.oO Be aware what you open up this way! You are at high risk to open
your samba filesharing to the whole internet. Be sure you only open
those ports on your local net and not on outbound devices.
> Hope this helps.

But it was a good hint to check that no firewalling blocks the samba
ports.
> Andrew Robinson

Alexander

[Bevan C. Bennett]

Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am Mi, den 03.03.2004 schrieb Andrew Robinson um 20:51:
> > # Samba access
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --sport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
> >
> > I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to get Samba to 
> > work. However, this works for me.
>
> .oO Be aware what you open up this way! You are at high risk to open
> your samba filesharing to the whole internet. Be sure you only open
> those ports on your local net and not on outbound devices.

Indeed!
That's pretty much the same set I'm running on my samba PDC (which is 
behind a firewall), although I can say that you do -not- need the UDP 
port 445 (445 only uses TCP).

Additionally, I believe you only need 1512 open if this system is the 
network's WINS server.

[Andrew Robinson]

Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am Mi, den 03.03.2004 schrieb Andrew Robinson um 20:51:
> > # Samba access
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --sport 137:138 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
> > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
> >
> > I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to get Samba to 
> > work. However, this works for me.
>
> .oO Be aware what you open up this way! You are at high risk to open
> your samba filesharing to the whole internet. Be sure you only open
> those ports on your local net and not on outbound devices.

How would I restrict these entries to my local net? Do I add an "-s 
192.168.1/24" to each line?

Thanks!

Andrew

[Eric Diamond]

> Andrew Robinson wrote:
>
> Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> > Am Mi, den 03.03.2004 schrieb Andrew Robinson um 20:51:
> > > # Samba access
> > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --sport 137:138 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 139 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 445 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m tcp -p tcp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 1512 -j ACCEPT
> > >
> > > I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to
>
> get Samba
> > > to
> > > work. However, this works for me.
> >
> > .oO Be aware what you open up this way! You are at high
>
> risk to open
> > your samba filesharing to the whole internet. Be sure you only open 
> > those ports on your local net and not on outbound devices.
>
> How would I restrict these entries to my local net? Do I add an "-s 
> 192.168.1/24" to each line?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andrew

That would work, but wouldn't prevent spoofing. If you're running samba on a
gateway device, then you really don't need the above rules. You should be
paranoiacally restrictive on your external interface, but unless you've
already been burned by internal hackers, you can probably trust your
internal interface.

redhat-config-securitylevel has checkbox options for trusting all traffic on
specific interfaces, or if you prefer to edit /etc/sysconfig/iptables
directly then something like this will do to create a basic black hole on
eth1 while trusting everything from eth0 and masquerading outbound traffic.

*filter
:INPUT DROP [0:0]
:FORWARD DROP [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
:no-conns-from-eth1 - [0:0]
-A INPUT -j no-conns-from-eth1 
-A FORWARD -j no-conns-from-eth1 
-A no-conns-from-eth1 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT 
-A no-conns-from-eth1 -i ! eth1 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT 
-A no-conns-from-eth1 -i eth1 -m limit --limit 3/hour -j LOG --log-prefix
"Bad packet from eth1:"
-A no-conns-from-eth1 -i ! eth1 -m limit --limit 3/hour -j LOG --log-prefix
"Bad packet NOT from eth1:"
-A no-conns-from-eth1 -j DROP 
COMMIT
*nat
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [0:0]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [0:0]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0]
-A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE 
COMMIT

Note: This is iptables-save output from a script that was (almost) copied
wholesale from Rusty's IP Filtering and NAT HowTo's. It is deliberately very
basic. Given the realities of being connected to the internet you will
probably want additional rules. Google 'iptables' for more resources. I
recommend Rusty's guides highly. After all, he did write the stuff...

You should then restrict samba to the internal interface with:

interfaces = eth0
bind interfaces only = yes

This also interacts with the host allow list so make sure you've included
all networks/subnets that will be accessing this server in your hosts allow
statement:

Hosts allow = 192.168.42. 10.42.0. 127.

Make doubly sure you include the 127. reference or nasty things can happen
when you implement bind interfaces only. See man smb.conf for details.

Hope this helps. Have fun!

Eric Diamond
eDiamond Networking & Security
303-246-9555
[e-mail]

Fedora 2 with better firewall-config? Was: Samba What a struggle

[Alexandre Strube]

Em Qui, 2004-03-04 às 17:34, Eric Diamond escreveu:
(...)
> > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > > I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to

I don't know if this is on topic, but it seems quite appropriate for me.
What I'm asking is if we are going to have a better default firewall
solution for Fedora 2 that the current one.

Several people talked about alternative solutions for GUIs to iptables.
Is there any of those being incorporated into our favorite distro? :-)

Fedora 2 with better firewall-config? Was: Samba What a struggle

[Gertjan Vinkesteijn]

Alexandre Strube wrote:
> Em Qui, 2004-03-04 às 17:34, Eric Diamond escreveu:
> (...)
> > > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > > > I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to
>
> I don't know if this is on topic, but it seems quite appropriate for me.
> What I'm asking is if we are going to have a better default firewall
> solution for Fedora 2 that the current one.
>
> Several people talked about alternative solutions for GUIs to iptables.
> Is there any of those being incorporated into our favorite distro? :-)

You might try the firewall what has been developed by Michael in our 
adsl4linux group, ( i am one of the founders and still moderator), it is 
really handy and nice. Go a bit through the dutch part, but that is not 
so difficult in this case. -> http://www.adsl4linux.nl if necessarry I 
will put it on my ftp gershwin, let me know.

Fedora 2 with better firewall-config? Was: Samba What a struggle

[Gertjan Vinkesteijn]

Gertjan Vinkesteijn wrote:
> Alexandre Strube wrote:
> > Em Qui, 2004-03-04 às 17:34, Eric Diamond escreveu:
> > (...)
> > > > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT -A 
> > > > > > I don't think all of these iptables entries are required to
> >
> > I don't know if this is on topic, but it seems quite appropriate for me.
> > What I'm asking is if we are going to have a better default firewall
> > solution for Fedora 2 that the current one.
> > Several people talked about alternative solutions for GUIs to iptables.
> > Is there any of those being incorporated into our favorite distro? :-)
>
> You might try the firewall what has been developed by Michael in our 
> adsl4linux group, ( i am one of the founders and still moderator), it 
> is really handy and nice. Go a bit through the dutch part, but that is 
> not so difficult in this case. -> http://www.adsl4linux.nl if 
> necessarry I will put it on my ftp gershwin, let me know.

Click on ADSL4LINUX in the middle of the screen
click on ADSL4LINUX
click on ADSL4Linux 1.09 (Changelog)
I believe in it is in the temlpate directrory

success

Fedora 2 with better firewall-config? Was: Samba What a struggle

[Gertjan Vinkesteijn]

Gertjan Vinkesteijn wrote:
> Gertjan Vinkesteijn wrote:
> > Alexandre Strube wrote:
> > > Em Qui, 2004-03-04 às 17:34, Eric Diamond escreveu:
> > > (...)
> > > > > > > -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m udp -p udp --dport 137:138 -j ACCEPT 
> > > > > > > -A I don't think all of these iptables entries are required 
> > > > > > > to
> > >
> > > I don't know if this is on topic, but it seems quite appropriate for 
> > > me.
> > > What I'm asking is if we are going to have a better default firewall
> > > solution for Fedora 2 that the current one.
> > > Several people talked about alternative solutions for GUIs to iptables.
> > > Is there any of those being incorporated into our favorite distro? :-)
> >
> > You might try the firewall what has been developed by Michael in our 
> > adsl4linux group, ( i am one of the founders and still moderator), it 
> > is really handy and nice. Go a bit through the dutch part, but that 
> > is not so difficult in this case. -> http://www.adsl4linux.nl if 
> > necessarry I will put it on my ftp gershwin, let me know.
>
> Click on ADSL4LINUX in the middle of the screen
> click on ADSL4LINUX
> click on ADSL4Linux 1.09 (Changelog)
> I believe in it is in the temlpate directrory
>
> success

Michael gets the honor, Technical University Delft : 
http://bovendelft.xs4all.nl

Fedora 2 with better firewall-config? Was: Samba What a struggle

[Alexandre Strube]

Em Sex, 2004-03-05 às 23:28, Gertjan Vinkesteijn escreveu:
> > Several people talked about alternative solutions for GUIs to iptables.
> > Is there any of those being incorporated into our favorite distro? :-)
>
> You might try the firewall what has been developed by Michael in our 
> adsl4linux group, ( i am one of the founders and still moderator), it is 
> really handy and nice. Go a bit through the dutch part, but that is not 
> so difficult in this case. -> http://www.adsl4linux.nl if necessarry I 
> will put it on my ftp gershwin, let me know.

Thanks for the tip. I'm looking at your site now, inspite of the fact I
don't speak dutch. :-(

But that's not I was talking about. What I asked if it will be some kind
of replacement in fedora 2 for that crappy redhat-config-securitylevel.
Iptables can do too much to be limited for such a tool.

Fedora 2 with better firewall-config? Was: Samba What a struggle

[Gertjan Vinkesteijn]

Alexandre Strube wrote:
> Em Sex, 2004-03-05 às 23:28, Gertjan Vinkesteijn escreveu:
> > > Several people talked about alternative solutions for GUIs to iptables.
> > > Is there any of those being incorporated into our favorite distro? :-)
> >
> > You might try the firewall what has been developed by Michael in our 
> > adsl4linux group, ( i am one of the founders and still moderator), it is 
> > really handy and nice. Go a bit through the dutch part, but that is not 
> > so difficult in this case. -> http://www.adsl4linux.nl if necessarry I 
> > will put it on my ftp gershwin, let me know.
>
> Thanks for the tip. I'm looking at your site now, inspite of the fact I
> don't speak dutch. :-(
>
> But that's not I was talking about. What I asked if it will be some kind
> of replacement in fedora 2 for that crappy redhat-config-securitylevel.
> Iptables can do too much to be limited for such a tool.

You need to remove the lines for automatic module loading and external 
automatic module loading, that is all there is. Yes, it is a good 
replacement, and a very good upgrade for what somebody made in the far 
east. Just try as follows (I did it so):
mkdir rc5.d/orig
mv iptables orig
/etc/init.d/firewall.iptables
ln -s ../iinit.d/firewall.iptable S960firewall.iprables  // formally in 
front of xinetd, you should be paranoya ;-)
in /etc -> /etc/firewall.iptables.conf   and do not forget to edit that 
@!#@$
same for rc3.d of course, perhaps I made a typo, but I am not totally 
ready with Fedora and thus on Micro-soft, so I cannot no check it.

Alexander the Great died on the age of 33 by jumping in a cold bath in 
Susan, don't do that ever pls. ;-)

Fedora the right choice?

[George Lemos]

I am building a server to do several things. Host a simple website and web
forum, host a voice communications utility, and run a multiplayer game
server for about 20-25 people. FYI system specs P4 1.4ghz, 1GB ram. I can
easily get this going on a windows server which is what I do for a living.
But in an effort to force myself to learn and get more experience with Linux
I would like to commit to running this box with Linux.

Linux may use less of the boxes resources too.

Is fedora the right choice for me? Will this distro of Linux get me to the
level of success I am looking for? I'm planning on doing this the command
line route all the way. I am assuming if I install this OS minus the GUI
I'll have extra resources for the box to do its thing.

As a Linux novice, anything I should know or look into, be aware of, etc
that people on this list can recommend to me will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!
/g

Fedora the right choice?

[SternData]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:17:17 -0500, "George Lemos" 
wrote:
> I am building a server to do several things. Host a simple website and web
> forum, host a voice communications utility, and run a multiplayer game
> server for about 20-25 people. FYI system specs P4 1.4ghz, 1GB ram. I can
> easily get this going on a windows server which is what I do for a living.
> But in an effort to force myself to learn and get more experience with Linux
> I would like to commit to running this box with Linux.
>
> Linux may use less of the boxes resources too.
>
> Is fedora the right choice for me? Will this distro of Linux get me to the
> level of success I am looking for? I'm planning on doing this the command
> line route all the way. I am assuming if I install this OS minus the GUI
> I'll have extra resources for the box to do its thing.
>
> As a Linux novice, anything I should know or look into, be aware of, etc
> that people on this list can recommend to me will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
> /g

FYI, I'm running a 450MHz PIII box with 596MB memory as a small server doing
mail (POP and IMP webmail for user interface, sendmail as the MTA, and file
and print services for the PCs in the house).  Most of the time the machine
sits idle.  It's connected via a 100Mbps el-cheapo network card to the
broadband router.

I installed the GUI components, but boot into init level 3 (non-graphics
mode). I do use the GUI occasionally, but only for some good configuration
tools (like guarddog for the firewall).

I'm very happy with Fedora. Installation went better and faster than any
Windows install I've ever done (except for the time to download the .iso
files).
--
   Steve

Fedora the right choice?

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 14:35 3/3/2004, you wrote:
> FYI, I'm running a 450MHz PIII box with 596MB memory as a small server doing
> mail (POP and IMP webmail for user interface, sendmail as the MTA, and file
> and print services for the PCs in the house).  Most of the time the machine
> sits idle.  It's connected via a 100Mbps el-cheapo network card to the
> broadband router.

Heh... I'm using two machines with Pentium (Classic) CPUs at 166MHz, 32MB 
of RAM, and a 1GB hard drive as firewall/gateway, DHCP, DNS, and NTP 
servers. One runs at my house, with three or four client machines behind 
it, and the other runs at my office with about 30 machines behind it. Both 
work like a charm, run Fedora Core 1 with my idea of a minimal install, and 
*still* sit idle most of the time.

Fedora the right choice?

[WipeOut]

Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 14:35 3/3/2004, you wrote:
> > FYI, I'm running a 450MHz PIII box with 596MB memory as a small 
> > server doing
> > mail (POP and IMP webmail for user interface, sendmail as the MTA, 
> > and file
> > and print services for the PCs in the house).  Most of the time the 
> > machine
> > sits idle.  It's connected via a 100Mbps el-cheapo network card to the
> > broadband router.
>
> Heh... I'm using two machines with Pentium (Classic) CPUs at 166MHz, 
> 32MB of RAM, and a 1GB hard drive as firewall/gateway, DHCP, DNS, and 
> NTP servers. One runs at my house, with three or four client machines 
> behind it, and the other runs at my office with about 30 machines 
> behind it. Both work like a charm, run Fedora Core 1 with my idea of a 
> minimal install, and *still* sit idle most of the time.

All those services you are running are very "light", most commercial 
firewalls only use P1 or Celeron procs anyway so what you have is pretty 
much the same hardware spec as a commercial firewall that would cost 
thousands if you had to buy it.. Also products like WatchGuard firewalls 
run a Linux OS anyway.. :)

Later..

Fedora the right choice?

[Steve Searle]

Around 08:17pm on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 (UK time), George Lemos scrawled:
> level of success I am looking for? I'm planning on doing this the command
> line route all the way. I am assuming if I install this OS minus the GUI
> I'll have extra resources for the box to do its thing.

You might want to install the GUI (XWindows).  Unlike MS Windows (since
3.11 anyway), the GUI sits on top of the OS, and can be started
manually.  Especially if you are learning your way around, you might
find it easier at times to be able to run the GUI and use some of the
tools there.  When you are not working on the server, you can take it
down releasing all your processing power for your services.

Cheers

Steve

Fedora the right choice?

[Wade Chandler]

George Lemos wrote:
> I am building a server to do several things. Host a simple website and web
> forum, host a voice communications utility, and run a multiplayer game
> server for about 20-25 people. FYI system specs P4 1.4ghz, 1GB ram. I can
> easily get this going on a windows server which is what I do for a living.
> But in an effort to force myself to learn and get more experience with Linux
> I would like to commit to running this box with Linux.
>
> Linux may use less of the boxes resources too.
>
> Is fedora the right choice for me? Will this distro of Linux get me to the
> level of success I am looking for? I'm planning on doing this the command
> line route all the way. I am assuming if I install this OS minus the GUI
> I'll have extra resources for the box to do its thing.
>
> As a Linux novice, anything I should know or look into, be aware of, etc
> that people on this list can recommend to me will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
> /g

I use Fedora, an AMD 1Ghz CPU, and 500MB Ram to run a source control 
server, web server with JSP/Java applications, ftp server, and Firebird 
and MySQL database servers.  It handles the load quite well.  I also use 
another machine as my work station.  My work station is a tri boot 
Windows XP Professional, Fedora, and BEOS machine.  It spends more time 
booted to Fedora.  As another user posted I turn the GUI off on my 
server.  I use VNC to graphically manage my server when I need to.

Wade

Fedora the right choice?

[Wade Chandler]

Wade Chandler wrote:
> George Lemos wrote:
> > I am building a server to do several things. Host a simple website and 
> > web
> > forum, host a voice communications utility, and run a multiplayer game
> > server for about 20-25 people. FYI system specs P4 1.4ghz, 1GB ram. I can
> > easily get this going on a windows server which is what I do for a 
> > living.
> > But in an effort to force myself to learn and get more experience with 
> > Linux
> > I would like to commit to running this box with Linux.
> >
> > Linux may use less of the boxes resources too.
> >
> > Is fedora the right choice for me? Will this distro of Linux get me to 
> > the
> > level of success I am looking for? I'm planning on doing this the command
> > line route all the way. I am assuming if I install this OS minus the GUI
> > I'll have extra resources for the box to do its thing.
> >
> > As a Linux novice, anything I should know or look into, be aware of, etc
> > that people on this list can recommend to me will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks!
> > /g
>
> I use Fedora, an AMD 1Ghz CPU, and 500MB Ram to run a source control 
> server, web server with JSP/Java applications, ftp server, and Firebird 
> and MySQL database servers.  It handles the load quite well.  I also use 
> another machine as my work station.  My work station is a tri boot 
> Windows XP Professional, Fedora, and BEOS machine.  It spends more time 
> booted to Fedora.  As another user posted I turn the GUI off on my 
> server.  I use VNC to graphically manage my server when I need to.
>
> Wade

Oh yeah, you need to install the gui to be able to use the configuration 
tools, you just don't have to use it all the time.  I'll post more 
later, but you want to set your box up to boot to run level 3 instead of 
level 5.
man init
from a command line will give you a few more details.  You can locate 
the RH9 documentation CDs for some good documents.  They are still 
usable pertaining to Fedora.  Good introductions and things like that. 
Even a whole book or two in PDF format.

Wade

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Peter Bürger]

Hello fedora-users,

my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?

Sorry for my bad english.

buerger

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Zach Wilkinson]

Are you using the poweroff command?

Zach

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 22:02 +0100, Peter Bürger wrote:
> Hello fedora-users,
>
> my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?
>
> Sorry for my bad english.
>
> buerger
>
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Peter Bürger]

Now I'm using shutdown -h now ;) but at the end... the system is halted
but not automatically powerdown. What do you mean?

Am Mi, den 03.03.2004 schrieb Zach Wilkinson um 22:12:
> Are you using the poweroff command?
>
> Zach
>
> On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 22:02 +0100, Peter Bürger wrote:
> > Hello fedora-users,
> >
> > my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> > powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?
> >
> > Sorry for my bad english.
> >
> > buerger
> >
> > -- 
> > fedora-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Zach Wilkinson]

The manpage can explain it better than I can ...

# man poweroff

Zach

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 22:38 +0100, Peter Bürger wrote:
> Now I'm using shutdown -h now ;) but at the end... the system is halted
> but not automatically powerdown. What do you mean?
>
> Am Mi, den 03.03.2004 schrieb Zach Wilkinson um 22:12:
> > Are you using the poweroff command?
> >
> > Zach
> >
> > On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 22:02 +0100, Peter Bürger wrote:
> > > Hello fedora-users,
> > >
> > > my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> > > powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?
> > >
> > > Sorry for my bad english.
> > >
> > > buerger
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > fedora-list mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Bart Martens]

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 22:02, Peter Bürger wrote:
> Hello fedora-users,
>
> my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?
>
> Sorry for my bad english.
>
> buerger

Yes. See bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116190

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[WipeOut]

Peter Bürger wrote:
> Hello fedora-users,
>
> my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?
>
> Sorry for my bad english.
>
> buerger

Is it a dual processor PC or a P4 with Hyperthreading?
Are you using the SMP kernel?

The SMP kernel does not shut down on its own..

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Travis Fraser]

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 16:02, Peter Bürger wrote:
> Hello fedora-users,
>
> my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?
>
> Sorry for my bad english.
>
> buerger

You need to upgrade your kernel. The ACPI is updated in later Fedora
kernels.

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Peter Bürger]

I don't know exactly why, but now it works.
=> new kernel, edit the /etc/grub.conf

title Fedora Core (2.4.22-1.2174.nptl)
        root (hd0,0)
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2174.nptl hde=noprobe hdf=noprobe
hdg=noprobe hdh=noprobe ro root=LABEL=/ hdc=ide-scsi rhgb acpi=on
apm=power_off
        initrd /initrd-2.4.22-1.2174.nptl.img

now it works.
thanks to all for your help.

Am So, den 07.03.2004 schrieb Travis Fraser um 20:54:
> On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 16:02, Peter Bürger wrote:
> > Hello fedora-users,
> >
> > my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> > powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?
> >
> > Sorry for my bad english.
> >
> > buerger
>
> You need to upgrade your kernel. The ACPI is updated in later Fedora
> kernels.

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[Jeff Vian]

Peter Bürger wrote:
> I don't know exactly why, but now it works.
> => new kernel, edit the /etc/grub.conf
>
> title Fedora Core (2.4.22-1.2174.nptl)
>        root (hd0,0)
>        kernel /vmlinuz-2.4.22-1.2174.nptl hde=noprobe hdf=noprobe
> hdg=noprobe hdh=noprobe ro root=LABEL=/ hdc=ide-scsi rhgb acpi=on
> apm=power_off
>        initrd /initrd-2.4.22-1.2174.nptl.img
>
> now it works.
> thanks to all for your help.

Likely one of the 2 items  acpi=on or apm=power_off.  
I had similar problems and the acpi option worked for me, but others 
have touted the apm option as the cause for their success.
> Am So, den 07.03.2004 schrieb Travis Fraser um 20:54:
> > On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 16:02, Peter Bürger wrote:
> > > Hello fedora-users,
> > >
> > > my fedora don't want to do a powerdown after shutdown. I've to do the
> > > powerdown manually. Is anything known about this issue?

powerdown after shutdown - fedora core 1 - 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl

[wj]

On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 13:22, Jeff Vian wrote:
> Likely one of the 2 items  acpi=on or apm=power_off.  
> I had similar problems and the acpi option worked for me, but others 
> have touted the apm option as the cause for their success.

Both of them work...

Some systems support APM, some ACPI and some both. For systems that use
only APM them apm=power_off is correct. For systems that only support
ACPI then you need to add acpi=on. If you system supports both then
which you use depends on how the system is configured.

Fedora the right choice?

[Jean Francois Martinez]

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 21:17, George Lemos wrote:
> I am building a server to do several things. Host a simple website and web
> forum, host a voice communications utility, and run a multiplayer game
> server for about 20-25 people. FYI system specs P4 1.4ghz, 1GB ram. I can
> easily get this going on a windows server which is what I do for a living.
> But in an effort to force myself to learn and get more experience with Linux
> I would like to commit to running this box with Linux.
>
> Linux may use less of the boxes resources too.
>
> Is fedora the right choice for me? Will this distro of Linux get me to the
> level of success I am looking for? I'm planning on doing this the command
> line route all the way. I am assuming if I install this OS minus the GUI
> I'll have extra resources for the box to do its thing.

One of the benefits of Linux is that you can turn off the GUI when
nobody is interacting so why deprive yourself of tools who can make
your life easier when configuring or fixing things?.  Besides on a
1G box, resources used by X are not a so big deal than in the bad old
times: 10  megs of memory used are only 1% of the total RAM of course
I am assumming you are not running a silly OpenGL screen-server burning
most of eth CPU-cycles.  The main reason to not run X (even for
administering) is not resources but that the way X accesses the hardware
allows it to completely lock the box if it hits the right kind of bug.
But having X clients display remotely through VNC or ssh is easy so why
deprive yourself of them?
> As a Linux novice, anything I should know or look into, be aware of, etc
> that people on this list can recommend to me will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
> /g

Fedora the right choice?

[WipeOut]

George Lemos wrote:
> I am building a server to do several things. Host a simple website and web
> forum, host a voice communications utility, and run a multiplayer game
> server for about 20-25 people. FYI system specs P4 1.4ghz, 1GB ram. I can
> easily get this going on a windows server which is what I do for a living.
> But in an effort to force myself to learn and get more experience with Linux
> I would like to commit to running this box with Linux.
>
> Linux may use less of the boxes resources too.
>
> Is fedora the right choice for me? Will this distro of Linux get me to the
> level of success I am looking for? I'm planning on doing this the command
> line route all the way. I am assuming if I install this OS minus the GUI
> I'll have extra resources for the box to do its thing.
>
> As a Linux novice, anything I should know or look into, be aware of, etc
> that people on this list can recommend to me will be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
> /g

My advice is to do a minimum install on your server and then use YUM to 
install the components and packages you need, worked like a dream for my 
server..

Also make sure to checkout Webmin ( www.webmin.com ) which is a web 
based admin suite that I have found to be the best way to manage a Linux 
server in a GUI way without needing to insatll all the X stuff.. Just 
get the RPM from the webmin website, install it, open a web browser and 
point to port 10000 and you are away.. Truely a "killer app"..

Then add some time to go through the Linux learning curve and you are 
all set..

Welcome to a whole new way of computing.. Before long you will be 
running Linux on your desktop as well.. :)

Later..

Fedora the right choice?

[Alexandre Strube]

Em Qua, 2004-03-03 às 17:17, George Lemos escreveu:
> I am building a server to do several things. Host a simple website and web
> forum, host a voice communications utility, and run a multiplayer game
> server for about 20-25 people. FYI system specs P4 1.4ghz, 1GB ram. I can
> easily get this going on a windows server which is what I do for a living.
> But in an effort to force myself to learn and get more experience with Linux
> I would like to commit to running this box with Linux.

You couldn't find a better one. Fedora may be perfect for you.

[Alexandre Strube]

Em Qua, 2004-03-03 às 14:42, Chris Botha escreveu:
> Dear Fedora users. I am having my days with Fedora setting up Samba. I
> work according to the manuals and follow the basic instructions but
> with no hope. It refuses me to access the server.

If you're editing the configuration files by hand, don't. Use samba-swat
and be happy :-)