Okay, I've got RedHat 6.0 with Samba running. Not sure of the version of Samba, but it's working like a million bucks, serving MP3s across my home LAN.
I've got a 6.4 gig Western Digital hard disk drive mounted at /usr/public. This is my shared directory. df -h reports that I have:
And yet, I know I don't have that much in there. ls -la in /usr/public only shows 1,888,976,896 bytes in use. Same as my Windows clients.
Basically, 2 gigs. I've got 246 megs free, and I should have more than that: I've got very inefficient hard disk useage going on here.
Since df -h reports the drive size correctly (less overhead for the filesystem), what do I need to change in my smb.conf to make this work, or is this *not* where my problem is?
Here's the salient part of smb.conf:
# Global parameters
[global]
workgroup = FARTNET
netbios name = SERVER
server string = UNIX-Linux MASQ-Firewall-Proxy and File Server
interfaces = eth0
security = SHARE
max log size = 50
local master = No
remote announce = 192.168.0.255
guest account = pcguest
hosts allow = 192.168.0. 127.
case sensitive = No
[public]
comment = Shared Files
path = /usr/public
read only = No
guest only = Yes
And getting more personal with my machine, here's the /etc/fstab file:
It doesn't look like a samba problem to me. If the problem were isolated to samba, a df would report the correct usage.
I'm stretching here, but it could be that your BIOS isn't configured correctly and isn't reporting the proper drive size to the kernel. I'm thinking that, if the kernel can't access, say the last 90% of the drive, it reports it as used or bad. The drive was probably fdisk-ed to the correct size because df reports that correctly, which leads me to believe that the BIOS settings changed after that. I don't know, its just a hunch.
BigBlockMopar
11-01-2000, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Stackrat:It doesn't look like a samba problem to me. If the problem were isolated to samba, a df would report the correct usage.
Yeah, that's the part that's got me confused...
In fact, I think I already knew that, but I was hoping I was wrong: I'm not looking forward to formatting the damned drive. Fortunately, it just holds data; no applications or operating systems are installed on it.
I'm stretching here, but it could be that your BIOS isn't configured correctly and isn't reporting the proper drive size to the kernel.
Not to dismiss that out of turn, my understanding of Linux' ext2 filesystem is that the kernel speaks directly to the drive; how the BIOS feels about things is irrelevant. Of course, on the boot drive, it's an issue because the BIOS has to know where the MBR is to start loading it. And with (V)FAT partitions, BIOS is important.
(My reference in making that assumption is here: http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.1 )
Even so, the computer is a Dell Optiplex GL5133. Pentium 133; Pheonix BIOS reports the drive size properly in the setup screen, though, admittedly, the computer is of such a vintage that one might wonder.
I'm thinking that, if the kernel can't access, say the last 90% of the drive, it reports it as used or bad. The drive was probably fdisk-ed to the correct size because df reports that correctly, which leads me to believe that the BIOS settings changed after that. I don't know, its just a hunch.
Yeah. I think I'm in denial, but I think you're right about that. At least it's only 2 gigabytes that I have to transfer to my main machine, not the full 5.8 capacity of that drive...
Thank you.
Stackrat
11-02-2000, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by BigBlockMopar:
[B(My reference in making that assumption is here: http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Large-Disk-HOWTO-4.html#ss4.1 )[/B]I read that HOW-TO a few hundred times when I installed a 45GB HDD in my home server. I know from experience that the info is slightly dated. My problem was that the BIOS would only support up to 33.8GB. I even found that info posted on the HDD manufacturer's (Maxstor) was wrong with regard to Linux. The bottom line is that, if the BIOS is not set (or doesn't suport) to correctly access the full capacity of the drive, Linux wont be able to access it either.
I found that the EZ-Drive program (which ships most modern drives, in one form or another) is able to solve a multitude of sins with regard to BIOS problems.
At the present time, the 45GB drive is the only drive in the box. I'm able to boot from it (albiet using DOS (gasp!) and loadlin) and I have access to all 45GB, which is some thing the HOW-TO says can't be done.
To get back to your issue, it was a few months ago that I got this all working, but I'm pretty sure that, before I loaded EZ-Drive, I was able to FDISK the full 45GB, but I only really had access to 33.8 GB of it.
Good Luck!
BigBlockMopar
11-02-2000, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Stackrat:
At the present time, the 45GB drive is the only drive in the box. I'm able to boot from it (albiet using DOS (gasp!) and loadlin) and I have access to all 45GB, which is some thing the HOW-TO says can't be done.
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif I love defying the experts, too.
I guess the DOS loader is to get around LILO issues with >1024 cylinders? Or, reading on, is it so that your EZ-Drive software works with Linux?
before I loaded EZ-Drive, I was able to FDISK the full 45GB, but I only really had access to 33.8 GB of it.
Thanks, that sounds like exactly the problem. I guess df just looks for info on the drive at the same level as fdisk.
Since it's a Western Digital drive, I'll try out their EZ-Drive program. They advise that it will not work with Linux, nor is it necessary with Linux, but I'm gonna do it anyway.
Well, at the very least, I'll see what their diagnostics have to say about that drive being properly supported by BIOS.
I've also downloaded from www.dell.com (http://www.dell.com) a diagnostics disk for that machine, as well as a BIOS upgrade that I can flash in. The summary of the changes in their upgraded BIOS doesn't include any mention of proper handling of >2.1 gig hard disks, but I'll give that a shot, too, in case they forgot to mention it in their list. I have no other reason to flash the BIOS, which, of course, can be risky...
Good luck!
Thanks for the help, and thanks for the wish. I suspect I'm gonna need it.
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif
Lawrence
Stackrat
11-03-2000, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by BigBlockMopar:
I guess the DOS loader is to get around LILO issues with >1024 cylinders? Or, reading on, is it so that your EZ-Drive software works with Linux?
...
Since it's a Western Digital drive, I'll try out their EZ-Drive program. They advise that it will not work with Linux, nor is it necessary with Linux, but I'm gonna do it anyway. Yeah. I think that's why I did it. I think the probelm was that EZ-Drive and LILO couldn't co-exist in the MBR. I'm not 100% sure, its been a while. It might just have been because it was easier and I've had better luck with loadlin than I've had with lilo.
Which reminds me... EZ-Drive has to load from the MBR of the boot drive (ie. before the OS). Which means that, even though you're having problems with /dev/hdb, you have to install it on /dev/hda. Kinda throws a spanner in the works, doesn't it.
BobjoB
11-04-2000, 03:30 PM
i have a 120gb (raid0) partition i share on samba and i run it w/o any problems.
/dev/md0 114G 77G 37G
it most likely is any ez disk software your using, the drives(2x60gb) are unmodified with any ez disk software and linux reads em fine (kernel 2.2.17). update to lilo 0.20-5 for booting off of a large disk without troubles.
BigBlockMopar
11-04-2000, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Stackrat:
Which reminds me... EZ-Drive has to load from the MBR of the boot drive (ie. before the OS). Which means that, even though you're having problems with /dev/hdb, you have to install it on /dev/hda. Kinda throws a spanner in the works, doesn't it.
Well, to some people, yeah. But this machine was also my first installation attempt - I've installed Linux on 7 or 8 other machines since then. For one thing, I was pretty clueless on drive partitioning.
It's also running RH 6.0, which is flaky at best. And while I know that there are better distros out there than Red Hat, I'm still new enough to Linux that I appreciate the comforts and support of using a very common distro.
This machine just runs as a home network gateway, with a webserver, Samba server, mail server, etc. The worst part of formatting the drives and installing RH 6.2 (7.0 is too new) is that everything on the Samba server will have to be saved elsewhere for that time.
Now, if I hadn't e-mailed all my friends with my URL and the instructions on how to download a DivX that I made of Normal, Ohio, I'd do it today.
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif
Stackrat
11-04-2000, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by BobjoB:
i have a 120gb (raid0) partition i share on samba and i run it w/o any problems.
/dev/md0 114G 77G 37G
it most likely is any ez disk software your using, the drives(2x60gb) are unmodified with any ez disk software and linux reads em fine (kernel 2.2.17). update to lilo 0.20-5 for booting off of a large disk without troubles.That's great *IF* you BIOS is able to handle IDE drives of that size. We suspect that the BIOS can't and it appears you have two SCSI drives.
Originally posted by BigBlockMopar:
This machine just runs as a home network gateway, with a webserver, Samba server, mail server, etc.So is mine. I'm running http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gifSlackware http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gif on mine, but I know how you feel. It started out with WinNT for 6 months, then Mandrake 6.1 for another 6 months. I installed http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gifSlackware http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gif 7.1 the week after it was released and dropped in the 45BG drive at the same time.
[This message has been edited by Stackrat (edited 04 November 2000).]
Stackrat
11-16-2000, 01:29 AM
I wrote up a micro-how-to in this thread:
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003623.html
BigBlockMopar
11-16-2000, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Stackrat:
That's great *IF* you BIOS is able to handle IDE drives of that size. We suspect that the BIOS can't and it appears you have two SCSI drives.
It gets even better... I went to Dell's website to try to find out what they thought the BIOS would handle. There was a lot of information on how to actually screw a new hard disk drive into your computer. Even how many inch-pounds to torque the 6-32 x 1/4" screws holding in your new drive. But *nothing* about whether or not the BIOS would support the larger drives that their installation instructions are covering.
So, I downloaded and flashed a new BIOS into my machine. Went from the Dell Optiplex/Phoenix A19 to the A20. Of course, the new BIOS update doesn't support large disks, either.
When I run the Western Digital EZ-drive utilities, they still ***** at me. "WARNING: Your BIOS is NOT properly controlling your Western Digital hard drive."
I've also tried upgrading the system from RedHat 6.0 to RH6.2. Everything else works better now. I'm afraid I'm going to have to format the drives, install a DOS boot loader to work with WD's EZ-Drive, and then put RH6.2 back on top of that mess.
Originally posted by StackRat:
So is mine. I'm running http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gifSlackware http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gif on mine, but I know how you feel. It started out with WinNT for 6 months, then Mandrake 6.1 for another 6 months. I installed http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gifSlackware http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/cool.gif 7.1 the week after it was released and dropped in the 45BG drive at the same time.
You're a brave man.
http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif
I don't want to start a distro war here, but I've been sticking with RH because it's so popular - info for it is easy to get. I know it's not the best distro out there. RH7.0, I'll avoid like the plague. But I love RH6.2.
Okay, sooner or later, I'm going to get to feeling motivated, and I'm going to format both those damned drives and see if I can't fix the problems with that system.
Thanks! http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif
justlinux.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.