Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 151 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • gw1500se
    Participant

    I am having the same problem except I have an XRAID array instead of a SATA array. However, I have traced the problem down to a single folder used for archiving files. When copying files into it, the cpus get pegged by AppleFileServer (mostly system). There is no rational explanation as to why that folder causes the problem other then the number of subfolders and files is quite large. Unfortunately, I am not anticipating a solution but will be watching this thread.

    Apple introduced a host of bugs with the last Tiger release and then withdrew support for it. Very bad form. The worst bug was introduced to the OD password management system. Anyway, we are resigned to living with this until it is practical for us to upgrade to Leopard. Unfortunately, Apple made an easy upgrade impossible as Leopard requires a clean install and Apple provided no real tools to migrate the data. It is an agonizing manual process, from all I’ve read, and the main reason it is impractical for us to do the upgrade in the foreseeable future. Do I sound bitter?

    gw1500se
    Participant

    When you say you “Upgraded” to 10.5 do you mean that literally (i.e. you used the ‘Upgrade’ button)? If you did then that is almost certainly the problem. Everything I have read indicates that Apple should never have put that button on the installer. If you use it, your installation is hosed. Leopard needs to be installed clean and then you need to go through the agony (which is why my servers are still running Tiger) of manually migrating everything. There are good articles here and elsewhere on the best (least painful) way to do this but they are all long manual processes.

    in reply to: XP Clients Can’t Write to SMB Share #374476
    gw1500se
    Participant

    I seem to recall an issue, at least under Tiger (don’t know if it is fixed under Leopard) with OS X participating in an AD domain. IIRC, the Mac server refused to work if it was not an AD master. Catch-22, the Windows server refused to work as an AD slave to an Mac AD master. However, it sounds like you have gotten further than I was able to before I gave up. It appears that the ownership issue is because the xserve is not recognizing the users from the AD domain master. Are the xserve and the windows servers exchanging user information correctly? That is, can you see the AD users in the Leopard server Work Group Manager list?

    gw1500se
    Participant

    The first thing to do is start looking at logs. What shows up in the kdc and password server logs when you try to authenticate? Are there any errors showing up in the password server error log?

    in reply to: CLAMAV upgrade question #373796
    gw1500se
    Participant

    OK, it seems to be working now and the ‘clamscan’ processes are gone. All I did was unload/load ‘amavisd’ for the 3rd time. Its a puzzle why the 1st 2 didn’t work as there were no errors.

    in reply to: CLAMAV upgrade question #373795
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Yes but I didn’t see where that edit would stop ‘clamscan’. All it seemed to do was add ‘clamd’. Shouldn’t I have commented something when I uncommented ‘clamd’? However, the only place ‘clamscan’ shows up is in the av_scanners_backup section. From the comments that should only run if the others fail. I have a suspicion that I am now running both versions.

    in reply to: CLAMAV upgrade question #373793
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Thanks for the reply. I understand that. What concerns me is that ‘clamscan’ is running at all. I was under the impression that with ‘clamd’ it would not run. Either I misunderstood or I am not properly running ‘clamd’.

    in reply to: clamscan consuming all my CPU #373786
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Found and article on this issue. The recommendation was to upgrade to a later version of CLAMAV.

    in reply to: 10.4.11 SMTP error #373736
    gw1500se
    Participant

    I tried accessing your server and when I entered the MAIL FROM command it rejected with “501 Bad address syntax”. My syntax was correct. That seems to correlate with the error you saw that says “451 Server configuration error.” Clearly there is something POSTFIX doesn’t like about your configuration and in particular, how it is processing the MAIL FROM command. The obvious question at this point is, what did you change? I suggest you go back to your previous working config file and start from there.

    in reply to: Cannot get to Single user mode #373383
    gw1500se
    Participant

    [QUOTE][u]Quote by: MacTroll[/u][p]nvram boot-args=”-s”[/p][/QUOTE]
    Cool! That worked. Now how do I get it back correctly? I put in ‘nvram boot-args=”1″‘ which seems to be working. However, when I do a ‘nvram -p’ it says:

    boot-args 1 srv=1

    but when I do it on another server it says:

    boot-args srv=1

    Did I do something wrong? Thanks.

    in reply to: Safari 3.1.1 and IE 6 User Agent #372438
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Thanks but it is more then just spoofing. It has to emulate IE. These developers that write IE specific web sites need to be hung by their thumbs.

    in reply to: Safari 3.1.1 and IE 6 User Agent #372421
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Oops! It appears ie4osx requires Wine and does not work on PPCs.

    in reply to: Safari 3.1.1 and IE 6 User Agent #372417
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Thanks for the lead. I’ll take a look at it. It might be a life saver.

    in reply to: Safari 3.1.1 and IE 6 User Agent #372394
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Thanks for the information. We have web sites that our business depends on that produce IE dependent web pages (those people should be banished from web development). We currently have a Citrix server the users go to under those circumstances but we are trying to eliminate it. This is going to be a tough nut to crack.

    in reply to: Safari 3.1.1 and IE 6 User Agent #372388
    gw1500se
    Participant

    Thanks for the reply. Interesting and disappointing at the same time. However, it seems that there are differences in the way Safari renders web sites based on user agent setting (at least IE). I have sites that do not complain about Safari but render incorrectly until the user agent is changed to IE. The sites then render correctly. I suppose they could be checking the agent and when they see Safari or Firefox just do the wrong thing but it seems too coincidental. How can I find out for sure?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 151 total)