conclusion from Re: Samba won't start

[D-Man <dsh8290@rit.edu>]

On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:12:50AM -0400, D-Man wrote:
| On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:34:32PM +0200, Mirek Kwasniak wrote:
| | On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 07:55:14AM -0400, D-Man wrote:
| | [...]
| | > Does samba work when run from xinetd?
| | 
| | Yes, samba works from xinetd but you must add a special flag for nmbd in
| | xinetd.conf:
| 
| Hmm, I couldn't get either nmbd or smbd to work from xinetd.  I added
| that flag for nmbd, but the windows box didn't know the machine
| existed.  Then I tried nmbd as standalone and smbd from xinted.  The
| windows box know the machine was there (nmbd functionalit) but
| couldn't see any shares on it (smbd functionality).
| 
| I think it might be an issue with timeouts -- windows isn't waiting
| long enough for xinetd to startup then handoff the socket to the
| proper daemon.  Is there any way I can change the timeouts on the
| windows box, or make xinetd respond faster?  (windows 98 -- probably
| the first edition as I got the machine in august '98)

Well, I have more or less solved the problem (at least identified what
the solution would be) :

It turns out I had xinetd configured properly.  When I tried it on the
Duron 750 box (with 128MB RAM) it works beautifully with no visible
delays!  If I run nmbd as "standalone" (since it doesn't die anyways)
and smbd from xinetd it works on the 486 box (only 8MB RAM) iff the
box isn't busy doing other stuff.  When I try to browse the shares I
can see and hear the hard drive cranking for a few seconds before I
see a response.

I guess I need to increase the power of the machine  (acquire more
RAM), or perhaps I will get better performance if I run it as
standalone and let it sit in swap most of the time. 

-D