This is a discussion on Re: [Samba] 3.0.21c and big wmv or mpg files - Samba ; At 10:40 PM 3/29/2006 +0200, you wrote: >Hi @all, > >are there any problems known with 3.0.21c and bigger video files (mpg and= =20 >wmv greater than 700 MB)? > >Received the information that these files cannot copied from XP ...
At 10:40 PM 3/29/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>are there any problems known with 3.0.21c and bigger video files (mpg and=
>wmv greater than 700 MB)?
>Received the information that these files cannot copied from XP to Samba=20
>(W2K is okay). Error message is the well known:
>[2006/03/28 18:03:36, 0] lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1225)getpeername=20
>failed. Error was Transport endpoint is not connected
I chased this elusive problem for a year. I'm still running 3.09-2.3 but I=
see it on other versions.
Tell me, do you get this problem when you drag/n/drop a file into a folder=
on the samba share? And can you prevent this problem from occurring by the=
Click in the target window on the samba machine (this is on the XP=20
desktop). Press F5 to refresh the view. Wait about a second. Immediately=20
start your copy. When I do this, the errors, previously reported to the=20
desktop and to my server log, don't occur.
I've been told that it's a WinXP only issue, that it attempts to connect on=
ports 445 and 139 nearly simultaneously, and then proceeds to talk over=20
whichever one answers first. I'm told that Win2k clients won't have this=20
problem, and Win98 clients don't use port 445 so it doesn't arise there.
Anyone have evidence to the contrary (so far)?
My thinking is that WinXP improperly responds to an attempt to open a=20
conversation on a different port than the one Samba expects. Maybe the TCP=
stack on SuSE is more rigorous and respects the sequence numbers and=20
considers a connection... ...a connection. Dunno. Need to get busy with=20
First thing I tried: In smb.com, add a line reading
smb ports =3D 139
which I hoped would tell it just don't reply on port 445 at all. This did=20
Next thing I tried, rather a kludge,
iptables -I INPUT 1 -p tcp --dport 445 -j DROP
Hey guess what? I haven't had a single incidence of the error since.
My explanation, as near as I can figure out, of what the rule does:
iptables ; firewall / packet filter
-I INPUT 1 ; Insert into chain "INPUT" as rule #1
-p tcp --dport 445 ; a rule for packets whose protocol is tcp AND=20
destination port is 445
-j DROP ; if matches rule, Jump to target "DROP"
The predefined target DROP is not another chain but actually means throw=20
the packet away.
I'm allowing port 139 through (by default) instead of 445 because I still=20
have the odd Win98 machine laying about.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
[Commentary] Despite of the cost of living, it remains popular.
--... ...-- -.. . -. ----. --.- --.- -...
firstname.lastname@example.org (remove "nospam") N9QQB (amateur radio)
"HEY YOU" (loud shouting) WEB ADDRESS http//www.mixweb.com/tpeters
43=B0 7' 17.2" N by 88=B0 6' 28.9" W, Elevation 815', Grid Square EN53wc
WAN/LAN/Telcom Analyst, Tech Writer, MCP, CCNA, Registered Linux User 385531
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the