Help Sharing Seti Folder with Samba

I'm trying to share my seti folders on my linux box with my windows systems using samba. The reason is I'd like to monitor them with seti watch in windows from my laptop. I've got samba running, and I can see the computer in my network neighborhood. The seti folder that I'm trying to share is listed when I click on the linux computer, but when I click on the folder windows says "\\utility\seti is not accessible The network name cannot be found" The entry in my smb.conf file for that share reads:

[seti]
path = /home/timcole/seti1
public = yes
only guest = no
writable = yes
printable = no

Any ideas?

Have you tried making the Samba share into a network drive and then running some sort of monitoring that way, I have my Linux boxen, well one of them that is up and shared as a Network drive. I would think doing it that way would enable you to do what you are asking, again with samba as well I think it is also dependant on the user you leave logged in.

Just a thought.

J

Actually the problem it seems had something to do with the user name on my window's box versus the user name on my linux box. On my windows system my default account name is "Tim" - on the linux box there's only root and "timcole" Funny thing is I added the user "Tim" to the linux box and used the same password as the Tim account on my windows system, and that still didn't work. However when I added a new user account "timcole" to my windows system (the same account that already existed on the linux box) it worked. Seti Watch says the client is stopped even when it's running, but all of the stats update correctly, so that's good enough for me.

hmm....is ur linux box using any caching program?? if so, u'll need to check "using caching program" when setting up the seti location in setiwatch. otherwise, it'll said the client is stop but all stats will updated. it happened to me first time when i set up a client. but all my box is windows tho...... ur case might be different. but just a reminder. good luck, tim.

Your settings seem a little strange to me. Try the following smb.conf as I have used it several times with no problems although I doubt it is perfect:

You should be able to map to \\YOURNETBIOSNAME\tim enter the password and hey presto.

I also find that with Setiwatch I need to set it to update >2 minutes otherwise it reports slower machines as stalled.

I'll give that a try. The odd thing is I added a user account to the linux box that has the same name and password as my main windows machine. I also added the password using the smbpasswd -a utility. On my windows machine I can see the folder on the linux box, but I can't get in; however when I added a new account to both my windows machine and the linux box I can access the shares.

This is my current config file. It's working okay except that I have to use a new account that I added to my windows machine. I can't access these shares with my default windows account, even though I added the same one to the linux box. Oh one other weird thing, this is not a slow system - it's a dual XP2000, but Seti Watch says both clients are stopped all the time. It grabs the stats and shows the correct amount of progress each time it refreshes, but it always says the linux client is not running.

No suggestions on getting things woking better- I never put any Time into getting my Linux box stats over the network.

But I did do an experiment recently: after the thread about wu times/benchmarks someone (I forget who!) commented that my TBird 1000@1400 (RedHat) was about 40/50 minutes SLOWER than theirs with Windows.

I am now running Win2K at 1333(ambients getting high!) and my average time has dropped from a bit over 6 hours to a bit under 5.5!

I think it was a matter of me NOT knowing how to optimize RedHat for crunching, but some comparative benches might be worthwhile: same rig, two oses.

I could do a default comparo- back up what I know now with benches, maybe someone good with linux can do an optimized kernel comparo?

I'm running RH 7.3 as a server type setup with apache, dns, email, etc running. I can't tell that the average work unit times are any different than with 2000. I've run seti on linux boxen from time to time, and I never have seen any noticeable difference. Mine is certainly not optimized. I haven't recompiled the kernel or anything. You can see what kind of load it has though:

All I know for 100% certain is that on that machine, with both operating systems installed with defaults, Win2K is faster. FSB was 133 for both, multiplier is lower with Win2K Pro than RedHat.

And nothing else has changed.

I think I am going to try it on one of the xp rigs for a week: more data anyway I have them stable at temps now (lower than they could be....2 Delta 50 cfm's on the way )

Hopefully someone who does recompile kernel's will get wind of this and bench a custom kernel: I'm really very curious to get some formal data on this: I wanted to run Linux for the cost savings....It makes adding machines MUCH easier!

Anyway, thats my plan: my XP1800 is going linux for a week starting tomorrow! Data will follow.

Sure give a shot and see what you come up with. I think the odds would be in favor of a linux box on slower machines, but I get the feeling that these fast machines we're running have so much power to spare that it doesn't make much difference. I hear so many arguments in favor of using linux because it can run well on older machines, but hell who has that many 486's laying around? And who in the heck would put an ancient machine into service as a server that needs to be reliable? I think the best argument for linux is cost and security, but even there an uninformed linux admin is no better than an uninformed windows admin. Anyway be sure to post the results.

Tim, you need oplocks = false in the config under the [global] section. What is happening is that the client box is caching that file because S@H is writing to it. Samba needs to instruct the client not to cache it otherwise Setiwatch just gets the cached file when it updates and it thinks the file is stalled.

I'm not sure about the user problem. guest ok = yes is not really a good idea for a /home folder. Essentially, you are allowing guests to your home directory. Remove that comment and try adding user = tim and only user = yes