[nzlug] samba: puzzled user...

[Cliff Pratt]

Robin Sheat wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2008 19:53:37 Simon Bridge wrote:
>> OK - so the workgroup talk is a red herring - - -
> I think so, yes. This may change if you use Windows domain controllers. I 
> don't do that, all the networks I deal with are small, just a handful of 
> computers.
> 
>> So it strikes me that it may just be useful, for the setup I have, just
>> to name the "workgroup" after the host and have done with it.
> If you like, or just set them all to 'WORKGROUP' or 'MSHOME' or something. At 
> work, I have the Linux machines set to 'LINUX' (and I ignore the windows 
> machines, they're not my problem)
> 
>>> Because windows networking is a bit rubbish, and sometimes machines just
>>> refuse to show up. Usually you can access them directly by typing the
>>> name.
>> Sayy what? Where?
> Screenshot may be the best way to illustrate:
> http://www.kallisti.net.nz/~robin/smbbrowser.png
> Note the smb://dagobert bit in the address bar (this is just nautilus, you can 
> click the pen-and-paper button to let you enter names directly)
> 
>> OK - so here I was thinking in terms of consistent behaviour and the
>> thing is renowned for not working consistently. Gotcha. No wonder I was
>> driving myself up the wall.
> I spent some time trying to figure that out on a windows network once. I 
> settled on 'reboot any machines having issues seeing or being seen'. Seemed 
> to work the best. Just the other day, none of the windows machine in my flat 
> could see my desktop unless you entered the name directly. A samba restart 
> fixed that (I suspect because samba was being the browse master, and 
> restarting it forced all the clients to refresh what they knew)
> 
>> Workgroup name is associated with the machine really - it's just that
>> there can be many machines, on the same network, with the same workgroup
>> name, where hostnames need to be unique?
> Yep. I don't know what happens if you have multiple machines with the same 
> name. I suspect confusion.
> 
>> Right - so a new machine joins a network, it's samba client announces "I
>> am here" and goes into a huddle with the servers... the servers
>> basically say "Hi, I'm Bazz, I'm in workgroup fubar, have I got a folder
>> for you: extra folds..." sort of thing?
> Pretty much. To be pedantic, from what I know of these things, what happens is 
> they join the network and say:
> "Hi, I'm looking for the browse master for the group fubar. Who are you?"
> If they get a reply, they tell it:
> "My name is bazz, and I'm going to join the workgroup"
> If they don't, they tell everyone:
> "I'm the browse master for the workgroup fubar"
> 
> Then, when another computer wants to see the computers on the network, it 
> says:
> "Browse masters, tell me about yourselves"
> and collates the responses, giving you a list of workgroups. When you want to 
> see a workgroup, it'll ask that browse master for the computers in it. When 
> you want to see a computer, it'll ask that computer for its shares.
> 
> When you ask for a computer, it'll broadcast "I'm looking for computer bazz, 
> talk to me". This process may be shortcut with things like DNS and (I think) 
> WINS.
> 
> This is a simplification, but should have the salient points. I read the samba 
> book a long time ago :) In particular, the browse master selection is more 
> complex than that.
> 
That accords with what I remember, except that there will be only *one* 
Master Browser for the whole network segment, which knows everything for 
all workgroups, and if it happens that there is more than one, chaos 
ensues. Clients broadcast for the Master Browser so network browsing is 
restricted to one network segment unless you do some trickery with the 
router between the two network segments.

Or so I remember. I'm particularly uncertain of the last bit.

Cheers,

Cliff