SAMBA on VMS

[Tim Nelson]

Anyone out there that has looked at running Samba in lieu of PathWorks/Advanced Server ?

[Ian Miller. · Accepted solution]

Note

SAMBA for VMS V2.2.8 is available
http://www.pi-net.dyndns.org/anonymous/jyc/

HP are looking at samba V3

[Tim Nelson]

Thank Ian. I have 2.02 that I got from the Samba.org site.

You have any experiences with Samba on VMS ?

[Ian Miller.]

I've only played a bit. V2.2.8 is better than V2.0 - at least it was easier to setup.

[Volker Halle]

Tim,

there was a talk at the German DECUS, that SAMBA is being looked at by HP Engineering as the Advanced Server replacement on OpenVMS I64.

Volker.

[Tim Nelson]

while running @install I got the following error. VMS 7.3-2 AS1200 server. Any tips ?
Creating codepage file /samba_root/lib/codepages/codepage.437
%SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO, access violation, reason mask=00, virtual address=0000000000000012, PC=00000000000578B0, PS=0000001B
%TRACE-F-TRACEBACK, symbolic stack dump follows
image module routine line rel PC abs PC
MAKE_SMBCODEPAGE CVT_FILESPEC vms_encode_filespec
41518 0000000000000E00 00000000000578B0
MAKE_SMBCODEPAGE STAT vms_stat 5385 0000000000000048 0000000000081EA8

[Jess Goodman]

We're using Samba V2.2.8 here and I get constant complaints from the users accessing it that the response time is terrible. It can take 30 seconds to get a directory listing of a 100 files or so. I don't know if there are any good tips to tune it.

Also I'm not sure how to set it up in a cluster so that there is one path to VMS served areas that will keep working even if a node running the Samba server goes down.

[Edwin Gersbach_2]

We have used SAMBA here on 4 clusters until some 18 month ago. It was horrible: at least once a week we had to investigate a connection or authorization problem. We had to maintain a NT4 server only for SAMBA with all the hassle of maintaining extra user accounts because SAMBA was not able to be part of our native AD domain.

Now we use Advanced Server as member servers in the AD domain. No more user complains, no more extra administration, it just runs!

Volker, if you mention the talk at the German DECUS symposium, you should also mention that SAMBA V3 was said to be the first useful version while a real replacement for Advanced Server will not be before V4. A long way to go.

Edwin

[Willem Grooters]

We use samba in our environent here to exchange files between PC and VMS - just a few users and no heavy loads, and no severe security constraints.
Sometimes, the NMBS process gets nuts and consumes a lot of CPU power and needs to be killed and restarted.
So for our environment, it's usable.

When Microsoft really decides - as the rumour goes - that NT4 compatinility mode is dropped, there is a severe problem: AS is based on this facility!

[Brad McCusker]

Edwin,

You wrote:

>SAMBA V3 was said to be the first useful
>version while a real replacement for
>Advanced Server will not be before V4.

Well, seeing as I was the guy doing the tak at German DECUS, I think I should weigh in.

I really didn't mean to say that V4 will be the "real" replacement. The intention is for V3 to be the SMB/CIFS file and print server on VMS for Integrity (and likely Alpha too). V3 should bring you most all of the functionality you need.

I think what might be confusing you is that I said V4 was viewed as the longer term solution. It is V4 that will likely provide support for Longhorn and future releases and it is V4 that HP might add the PATHWORKS "common services" layer underneath. (if there is something else that I said that was mis leading, let talk offline - I'll do a similar talk at bootcamp in June, I don't want to make the same mistakes)

It is hoped to have a V3 evaluation kit available later this summer.

Brad

[Tim Nelson]

Thanks everyone.
One reason I was looking at samba was for an alternative to Advanced server costs and continuing issues we have had with advanced server chowwing CPU and misc file integrity issues.

Certainly if Samba does not do a better job for a lower cost then it would be the wrong choice.

Keep the experiences flowing.

Apprecitated
Tim

[Uwe Zessin]

I've tried Samba a long time ago and even Pathworks V5 ran more stable, so I never looked back.

I don't know what its support state is today, but when I tried it, there wasn't much (don't get me wrong: that's ok for me - it was free and I could decide to use it or not).

Now, if HP takes over development and maintenance I wonder if it ends up like Mozilla's OpenVMS port (right, devil's advocate ;-)

[Rick Dyson]

One thought, I just read somewhere (semi-official I think!) that Advanced Server will not be ported to Itanium. I believe it was mentioned in the context that it will not be really supported on OpenVMS v8.2 and this would also apply to even Alpha... Though I bet it would still work there.

It was because of ownership of AS is with someone else and that was going to be a barrier that could not be crossed.

Of course, this is just me hear, me say.... But if it matters to you, I would suggest digging deeper with HP.

rick

[Dave Gudewicz]

Seems a bit ironic when Advanced Server is at a point of working well and certainly better than its predecessors, we are now faced with another challenge - SAMBA. And I understand the reasons why the move to SAMBA makes sense.

I sure hope that the v3 news is better than the v2 news I've been hearing.

Also hope that HP plans to properly support SAMBA when the time comes.

Having been through PCSA --> LANworks (remember that short lived name?) --> PATHworks --> Advanced Server, I hope the future move to SAMBA will be less painless. Time will tell. It always does.

[Jan van den Ende]

What I fear most, is that it might go the way of Apache and Mozilla.

Look at Apache: V1.3 is rather good, but years behind.
Then comes V2.0, and all at a sudden it even refuses to work with decent VMS files. Instead of using RMS, with the myriad goodies we take for granted until we miss them, they decided to go full-blooded you-nix.
As far as I know, those who tried speadily reverted to V1.3.

And Mozilla? another dead end.

I have some guarded hopes for Samba, but deep fears as well...

"May you live in interesting times"

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Uwe Zessin]

Oh, I'm not alone with my feelings?

I have tried not to sound too critical as I was fearing some harsh responses.


Yes, I remember PCSA and LANworks. I never had to deal with it myself, but I had to waste\etsaw\spend a sunday night when one of my former colleagues started one of this great migrations and was messing around with the #$**% memory managers to free some base memory. Quite amazing how much time can be burned so easily!!

[Craig A Berry]

I certainly hope HP's involvement with Samba will start with the latest development code rather than with a version that has already been released. The open source dead ends people have been talking about tend to happen when you start with a stable version that has already been released, port it, and then much later try to get your changes back into the repository. Your changes may no longer be applicable or may not be accepted by the maintainers if they are too far behind. From what I've heard, that's basically what happened with Apache.

Product managers understandably want to do projects that have a beginning, a middle, and end, and require a predictable level of resources. Unfortunately open source just doesn't work that way. If it's a busy project, you need to be building the latest snapshot on a more or less daily basis and getting your changes into the development stream as soon as possble, even if you know they are not quite done yet. On every project I've seen, changes make their way backward from the development stream to the maintenance stream, which is what turns into the next stable release.

HP can do this sort of thing if they commit the resources, as Colin Blake's fine work on Mozilla demonstrated (though that seems not to be going on anymore). I do worry that with the number of open source projects they've got going on in OVMS Engineering they don't have the resources to stay as current with all of them as they really need to for the long-term success of those projects.

[Brad McCusker]

Wow - so much to reply to. Where to begin...

OK, to Rick Dyson's post: Just about all of it is wrong (sorry to be so blunt). The first sentence might be accurate (AdvSer not ported to Itanium), but, that decision is not finalized. Advanced Server V7.3A-ECO4 is absolutely supported on OpenVMS 8.2 Alpha, and, HP is committed to continue to support Advanced Server on Alpha long into the future.

To Dave Gudewicz's comments - Yes, it will be supported, and, we are aware of the transition issues - providing for a reasonable transition is a priority.

To the comparisons to Apache and Mozzilla - In some respects, Samba on OpenVMS should be similar - specifically with respect to support for the product by HP Services and Engineering. But, in other respects I hope it is different. It is the intent of engineering to port Samba V3 now and Samba V4 as soon as it is available. We are watching Samba V4 very closely.

Craig Berry's comments about starting with the latest development stream are excellent. It is the intention of engineering to do just that. But, more importantly, it is also the intention of engineering to get the VMS specific changes checked back into the mainline code. One important point about Samba is that some of the lead developers are actually HP employees. So far, they have been very receptive to an OpenVMS port, and, we expect that to continue.

As for committing the resources, well, that is happening now. I can only assume it will continue.

Feel free to send me more comments. While I am not a part of the engineering team doing the port, somehow I've managed to become the public face on this effort (I guess my history preceeds me?). I do know the engineering and product teams are very interested in feedback.

Brad McCusker

[Brad McCusker]

Oh - To Tim Nelson:

You wrote:

>advanced server chowwing CPU and misc file >integrity issues.

"Chowwing CPU" should be something the supprot center can help you with. Have you tried to work with them on it?

"File Integrity issues" - Now this is really scary. There haven't been any data corrupters that I've known of for a long time. There should be no integrity issues. If you have more specifics on this, I am sure that the support center and engineering would like to hear more.

Brad

[Rick Dyson]

Brad,

Thank you for correcting my mistaken quotes. I had heard about the loss of AS on IA64 but it is good to hear it is still available and supported on ALP. I personally will probably never see an IA64, so I'm fine with that. :)

It looks like I did open some old sores about a few of the external products though, but that is how you eventualy get them healed, right? Out in the fresh air!

Thanks again for all facts on all those topics

rick

[Ian Miller.]

re mozzila - I use the V1.7 from the mozilla site
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.7/contrib/mozilla-openvms-alpha-m170.sfx_axpexe

works for me.

I think getting engineering resources committed will be the biggest problem.

In the latest vms roadmap on the pathworks slide it says the port of Advanced Server to Itanium is on hold pending investigation of a samba port.

[Ian Miller.]

the other issue with samba is that it's a unix program. I hope when its properly ported to VMS it will use VMS according to the VMS Programming Concepts Manual (a under used reference I my opinion)

[Antoniov.]

I think HP has a lot of software running on different platforms and will drop some of them.
Advanced Server works only on vms while Samba works on vms (not well?) and HP-UX therefore I guess, in the future, HP will prefer Samba.

Antonio Vigliotti

[Edwin Gersbach_2]

Brad wrote:
> (if there is something else that I said
> that was mis leading, let talk offline ...

I have to admit that I have not been in your session myself - I've been in a other stream - so I rely on the feedback from others and to the slides.

Edwin

[Anton van Ruitenbeek]

Ian,

Yes, I hope they will port SAMBA correctly to OpenVMS. Even supporting REAL clustering. That's wat AS perfectly does and (as far as i know) all the ported software doesn't.
The reason for VMS in secure systems is clustering !

AvR