Windows 10 Build 1809 und OMV Shares sind in der Netzwerkumgebung verfügbar.

  • ok seems like wsdd.py isn't that useful - have tried my best to help debug but there is "no way" to get this working on the easy - there is a workaround which i don't like for many reason!


    so it's sad to say but i'm out and i will switch back to the right out box working wsdd2 implementation...

  • ok seems like wsdd.py isn't that useful - have tried my best to help debug but there is "no way" to get this working on the easy - there is a workaround which i don't like for many reason!


    so it's sad to say but i'm out and i will switch back to the right out box working wsdd2 implementation...


    ok after a few hours of doing something other, i have realized that there was a similar problem in wsdd2 a long time ago - and after a little bit of research i have found the changelog commit and reason for that (and other than christgau mentioned it is not the docker device its the VPN tunnel - and that's afaik is also visible in the logs i have provided...):



    //add.: i can confirm that it is OpenVPN and not Docker - i have a backup proliant which i have setup with omv, docker and without OpenVPN and it is working as it should so - i have to mention that i'm a little bit pissed off by christgau he hasn't even taken a look into the things i have provided


    but as i said i'm done with it...

  • few days ago, a wsdd patch fixed the OMV not showing in windows explorer...
    today, many samba related patches were deployed.... and again,, my OMV is not showing in my win 10 explorer :(
    is it related :( ??

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    few days ago, a wsdd patch fixed the OMV not showing in windows explorer...
    today, many samba related patches were deployed.... and again,, my OMV is not showing in my win 10 explorer :(
    is it related :( ??

    ssh into omv and run systemctl restart wsdd

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    Maybe the “local master browser” option should be removed if it makes troubles. Is there a good reason to keep this setting?

    tkaiser commented in another thread about the Master Browser being outdated and I believe he's right. It's from the WinXP/Vista days. With newer client based resource discovery services in use for a local LAN workgroup, in the majority of cases I don't think it's necessary anymore.


    However, there are a couple of exceptions to consider.
    - In an MS AD domain, the Domain Master Browser is necessary for collecting client info across segmented TCP-IP networks. The Domain Master Browser collects this info from local master browsers.
    - To continue to use proprietary (expensive) software, there are a number of small businesses out there that are still running old clients (WinXP, Vista, etc.,) on closed networks. If they have an OMV server, the Master Local Browser may be useful to them.
    (This is not to be taken lightly. As outlandish as it seems, WinXP is estimated to be around 4% of the total desktop market share.)
    ____________________________________________________________________


    I have the Local Master Browser on with wsdd, and there has been no effect so far. But this only one LAN and the oldest client I have is Win7.


    If it turns out to be a real problem, more cases should pop up.

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    The other problem is LMB isn't just needed for older O/S's such as XP and Vista, older network printers that have not or do not have available firmware updates. LMB is reliant on SMB1 which in the current climate of W10 has been removed, but I was reading something the other day from MS TechNet Blog that SMB1 is still enabled in windows server 2016 :) and it's therefore the responsibility of the network admin to disable it.
    Another scenario is a mixed environment (hardly likely) but what if there is a necessity to run XP alongside W10.


    TBH a simple comment under Local Master Browser in SMB/CIFS -> Should be disabled in a Windows 10 workgroup would be the simplest option rather than disabling the option.

  • The other problem is LMB isn't just needed for older O/S's such as XP and Vista

    I think a bit of confusion is involved here.


    Older Windows versions run pretty fine without any Samba trying to become local master browser in range of vision. There will always be a LMB based on 'elections' even if there is no Samba instance on this network. Further confusion is related to how this election mechanism (and service discovery in general) works: UDP broadcasts which are limited to the broadcast domain (that's why you 'need' a domain master browser once you have a network divided into different subnets or more precise broadcast domains).


    The other sources of confusion are the scope of the chosen workgroup, the fact that this anachronistic browse/broadcast mechanisms sends out stuff only every 12 minutes and -- as always -- misconfigurations. A multi-homed host (more than one interface active) enabled to act as local master browser is a really bad idea. Same with administrators lacking patience and not aware of the 12 minute 'issue'.


    TL;DR: there is no need for Samba trying to become local master browser and those entities/individuals acting irresponsible by running horribly outdated Windows versions should not influence any decision anyway.


    Some details for those interested (unfortunately German only): https://www.heise.de/ct/artike…dows-im-Griff-972246.html

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    those entities/individuals acting irresponsible by running horribly outdated Windows versions should not influence any decision anyway.

    Ok let's agree to disagree, so in your opinion individuals running outdated Windows versions are irresponsible even though there may be a necessity for them to do that, and I can give you one example.


    Whilst I accept that LMB and I quote "anachronistic" in some cases may still be required, granted most users on here don't need it but why disable it when a simple disable statement is all that is required. Reminds me of saying we have in the UK "Don't cut off your nose to spite your own face"

  • Whilst I accept that LMB and I quote "anachronistic" in some cases may still be required

    Again: in Windows networks relying/using the anachronistic browse mechanism (that originates back to the days of NetBIOS over TCP AKA NBT -- we're talking here about Windows for Workgroups and Windows NT!) there always will be a LMB regardless whether there is an OMV/Samba instance on this network or not. Since the basic concept of this kind of service discovery relies on the existence of a local master browser there always will be one regardless of what you set in OMV or not.


    Please start reading at 'Browser Elections' here: https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/using_samba/ch07.html (yes the docs are as outdated as the mechanisms itself).


    Why do you think Samba 'needs' to be enabled to TRY to become the local master browser (winning the election)? Did you read above what I wrote about the '12 minute issue'?

  • Maybe the “local master browser” option should be removed if it makes troubles. Is there a good reason to keep this setting?

    As I understand it OMV doesn't adjust the os level setting so we're running with 20 which makes Samba loose elections even against an old Win NT DC (which uses 32 with that role). When setting local master = yes Samba will force an election on startup and if there's another host in the same broadcast domain also with preferred master browser settings (regardless whether that's Windows or Samba/OMV) such elections will be forced subsequentially fighting for the local master browser role. Microsoft when they designed this anachronistic stuff back then surely didn't wanted that happen but obviously OMV users have not the slightest idea what happens when they tick the 'local master browser' checkbox.

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    but obviously OMV users have not the slightest idea what happens when they tick the 'local master browser' checkbox.

    So educate them!! and I found this interesting post for those Windows users who have used "this anachronistic stuff" whilst it references the use of Freenas within a Workgroup Windows environment it's more than relevant and very well written (but that's my opinion) :)

  • I found this interesting post ... more than relevant

    Do you even realize that the idea to enable SMB1 today for whatever reasons is horribly stupid and using wsdd (or anything providing similar functionality) is the way to go with Win10? @votdev asked about potential negative interactions between wsdd and setting local master = yes in Samba not about dropping wsdd and replacing it with something stupid.

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    Back to the original questions:

    Maybe the “local master browser” option should be removed if it makes troubles.

    - I read this question as:
    Is the Local Browse Master setting harmful or, potentially, a problem for wsdd?
    I don't think it is, but I can only speak for a single LAN where the two are running side-by-side without an issue.

    Is there a good reason to keep this setting?

    - For businesses and, to a lesser degree, individuals who are running outdated clients or networks, in support of custom, proprietary software and equipment (commercial camera equipment, "E size" plotters, large format printers, scanners, etc.), LBM support might be important, even crucial.


    If we remove the local master browser checkbox this will not reduce the functionality of OMV because users that really really need that option can add it in the extra options field.

    This seems to be the actual decision point; whether or not the LBM toggle switch should exist as a matter of admin convenience. Since the functionality will be there, regardless, it's your call.
    _________________________________________________


    BTW: Please accept a note of thanks for the wsdd implementation. :thumbup: For the vast majority of OMV's users that's a very nice feature.

  • LBM support might be important, even crucial

    Why do you think so? If you set this Samba setting without adjusting os level as well what will happen? Totally depends on the network.


    And again: there will ALWAYS be a local master browser if there are old Windows clients since this is a basic requirement for the anachronistic browse methods to work. All that happens if you set local master = yes in Samba is that Samba will try to force an election (it won't win in many cases depending on the other network members probably running with a higher os level than 20).


    But there will always be a local master browser and Samba will show up in the network environment after 12 minutes after booting anyway even with local master = no if the workgroup defined is the same as the one on affected clients. So why do you think setting local master = yes is important?

Jetzt mitmachen!

Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!