Either that or make a better effort to comprehend my answer. Craig On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 15:42 -0500, Franck Y wrote: > Hello, > So we have to forget it ? > > Franck > On 10/20/05, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 10:37 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote: > > > Philip Prindeville wrote: > > > > Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > > > > >> Franck Y wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I don t know waht does this thing mean.....like the "get_peer_addr " > > > >>> > > > >>> Can you excplain me thk you > > > >>> > > > >>> Oct 20 13:41:09 constellation smbd[3927]: [2005/10/20 13:41:09, 0] > > > >>> lib/util_sock.c:get_peer_addr(1150) > > > >>> Oct 20 13:41:09 constellation smbd[3927]: getpeername failed. Error > > > >>> was Transport endpoint is not connected > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> getpeername failed => failed DNS/hostname lookup. > > > >> > > > >> -- Rex > > > >> > > > > > > > > No, that would be gethostbyaddr(). getpeername() is a system call > > > > that looks for the address of the other side (the remove side) of an > > > > association or socket pair. > > > > > > > > Of course, if you're using connectionless sockets (i.e. datagrams), > > > > then it won't return an endpoint... For that, you'd have to use > > > > recvfrom() and note the endpoint from individual requests. > > > > > > > > -Philip > > > > > > > > > > OK guys, I've been following this thread, because I've had this error > > > pop up for years. Initially I tried to look it up and fix it. I could > > > never find the true answer and it didn't affect my samba so I ignored it. > > > > > > However, it seems that now you guys actually know what this error means. > > > You've given a technical (programmers?) perspective of what has happened. > > > > > > Is there any chance you can convert that to lamens terms? > > > > > > i.e. Does anyone know how to get rid of the error message or how my > > > configuration for samba is wrong? > > > > > > P.S. I've had this configuration for samba more or less since RH 5.2 > > > (meaning I changed things as samba changed). This error did not show up > > > till RH9 or Fedora 1 from memory. It's probably caused by something > > > deprecated or the like in my smb.conf, but do we have any idea what? > > ---- > > No - the explanation was correct. Typically this will come from a Win2K > > or WinXP client connection which will simultaneously connect to port 139 > > and 445 and drop one or the other as unnecessary - hence the log entry. > > Samba developers sort of consider this to be rude client behavior. ;-) > > > > If you want that type of activity to not be logged, then in the general > > section, declare the smb port... > > > > smb port = 139 #mix of Win95/98/2K/XP as Win95, Win98, WinME only > > connect to port 139 > > or > > smb port = 445 #win2K & WinXP clients only > > > > the default is both ports are active for smb > > > > personally, I would recommend that people not concern themselves with > > the logged entries and leave it alone since it isn't broken. > > > > If you want an in depth dissection of the ports that Microsoft uses, see > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832017 > > > > Craig > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > > -- > > fedora-list mailing list > > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > > > > > -- > Franck > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
