Here's another part of that file - from another access attempt:
[2003/05/31 20:13:51, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:call_nt_tra
call_nt_transact_ioctl: Currently not implemented.
????
Boll
:-=>
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsHi,
I've been running Rehhat 6.1 (old, I know) and SAMBA 2.05a for literally years, with pretty much zero
downtime, and no problems. ALL clients have been Win98. I've made no changes or upgrades since
it was installed. Access to all files has always been lightning fast.
I just set up XP Pro on one of my boxes. SAMBA continues to function as always on my Win98 clients (there
are 3 of them still on the network here at home).
When XP access a SAMBA share, it works most of the time, but, not very well. I attempt to access a file, and
SAMBA will take several minutes to do anything, then, eventually, my image is displayed. One in 10 times,
I get a message that says the server cannot perform the action.
What's up with XP when my Win98 boxes are still humming???
Bill
:-=>
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
Here's what I would do:
On your TCP/IP settings for your WinXP Local Area Network Connection, make sure you have File and Printer Sharing for MS networks enabled. Additionally, enable Client for MS Networks (although I'm not sure if it's completely necessary -- but I always turn it on). You've probably already done this, but it's worth mentioning.
On your WinXP box, try disabling Simple File Sharing -- do this:
How to Disable Simple File Sharing
1. Click Start, and then click My Computer.
2. On the Tools menu, click Folder Options, and then click the View tab.
3. In the Advanced Settings section, clear the Use simple file sharing (Recommended) check box.
4. Click OK.
That should do it for WinXP Professional -- I remember running into the same problem and this fixed it.
Thanks for writing, robKnowsNothing. I tried your first set of suggestions and my system seems to be acting
the same.
As for your second point, an upgrade...Unfortunately for me, I'm running RH 6.2 and the SAMBA RPMs are only for 6.2 and higher. I suppose I could
build the package here, however, I think I may upgrade the whole nine yards next week to RH9.
In any case, I still want to solve this problem, if possible, they way it stands now. Not sure when I"ll have time to do the RH9 thing.
Bill
:-=>
How about sharing between Windows 98 and WinXP? How is the performance when it comes to that?
I would think that if there has been no degradation in performance when sharing amongst Windows operating systems, then it's most likely Samba's fault.
Right, according to your first post, you're running 6.1 so a 6.2 RPM would not work. My advice: build from source. Probably better if you built from source anyways...
Building from source will not take as long as you think -- and configuring is definitely not hard -- most of your current config can be used in the new one (i.e. all of your share definitions). Hope this helps!
-rob
No sharing among computers on my home network. That's what the SAMBA server is for. I have no real need to open up our systems to
Windows file sharing issues (hackers, etc) when SAMBA used to work just fine. I tried enabling it for the sake of your suggestion, but,
since it had no apparent effect, I disabled it again.
Still searching for an answer.
Bill
:-=>
Hmmm...I'm going to have to bite the bullet, then. I'll see about building a new version from code, rather than updating the entire system. I don't
really need RH9 at home since the ONLY thing I use it for is SAMBA. I imagine, building the new SAMBA binary is the way to go. I have family commitments today, tonight, and the next few days, so, don't worry if you don't hear back from me right away. Later this week, I'll update the binary and see where that takes me.
If it works, then, I'll definitely award you the points. Cheers!
Bill
:-=>
Sounds good! Building from source is easier than you think... it's pretty much like this:
1. download source
2. tar -zxvf samba-source.tar.gz
3. cd to the directory where the source was unzipped
4. ./configure
5. make
6. su root
7. make install
That's really pretty much it. Let me know how it goes when you get a chance.
-rob
Rob is definitely correct, you need a newer version of samba, you may also want to look into configuring samba for trust accounts
http://ftp.sanguine.net/pu
this link may help, look at the section on configuring trust accounts "on the fly".
Cheers...
Ber...
Bigpaws:
This old question needs to be finalized -- accept an answer, split points, or get a refund. For information on your options, please click here-> http:/help/closing.jsp#1
EXPERTS:
Post your closing recommendations! No comment means you don't care.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: BigpawsPosted on 2003-05-31 at 20:33:53ID: 8622609
Here's the bottom part of the log.smb file:
(992) tion(320) (905) (905) (905) (948) (992)
[2003/05/31 19:23:28, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break
oplock_break: client failure in break - shutting down this smbd.
[2003/05/31 19:24:02, 0] smbd/service.c:make_connec
bill logged in as admin user (root privileges)
[2003/05/31 19:46:38, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break
oplock_break resend
[2003/05/31 19:46:48, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break
oplock_break resend
[2003/05/31 19:46:58, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break
oplock_break resend
[2003/05/31 19:46:58, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break
oplock_break: no break received from client within 30 seconds.
oplock_break failed for file By Request/Leeann Womack - Why They Call It Falli
ng.mp3 (dev = 308, inode = 688201).
[2003/05/31 19:46:58, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break
oplock_break: client failure in break - shutting down this smbd.
[2003/05/31 19:55:08, 1] smbd/server.c:main(628)
smbd version 2.0.5a started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell 1992-1998
[2003/05/31 19:55:19, 1] smbd/server.c:main(628)
smbd version 2.0.5a started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell 1992-1998
Looks like Op_lock problems but, I have no clue what it all means and what to do about it. I can tell you that the problems reported
were generated by the XP box alone.