Multiple /usr/sbin/smbd

[cunami]

Hi,
I have something strange with Samba on my WL-500g.

I'm using firmware 1.9.2.7-6b, have connected 200GB external USB drive, with FAT32 file system on it. I am able to browse files with no problems, but when I'm trying to copy files through samba (to share$), I'm getting "The specified network name is no longer available" error message.

I took a look to process list:

  PID  Uid     VmSize Stat Command
    1 admin       204 S   /sbin/init
    2 admin           SW  [keventd]
    3 admin           RWN [ksoftirqd_CPU0]
    4 admin           DW  [kswapd]
    5 admin           SW  [bdflush]
    6 admin           SW  [kupdated]
    7 admin           SW  [mtdblockd]
   39 admin       136 S   telnetd
   47 admin       148 S   klogd
   51 admin       164 S   syslogd -m 0 -O /tmp/syslog.log -S -l 7
   52 nobody      248 S   dnsmasq
   57 admin           SW  [khubd]
   69 admin       124 S   lpd
   71 admin       104 S   p9100d -f /dev/usb/lp0 0
   73 admin       104 S   p9101d -f /dev/printers/0 1
   76 admin       148 S   waveservermain
   78 admin       148 S   rcamdmain
   82 admin           DW  [usb-storage-0]
   83 admin           SW  [scsi_eh_0]
   87 admin       264 S   pppd file /tmp/ppp/options.wan0
   90 admin       172 S   infosvr br0
   91 admin       268 S   watchdog
   93 admin       152 S   ntp
  112 admin       212 S   stupid-ftpd
  114 admin       480 S   /usr/sbin/nmbd -D
  116 admin       420 S   /usr/sbin/smbd -D
  262 admin       296 S   upnp -D -L br0 -W ppp0
  291 admin       340 S   -sh
  317 admin       476 S   /usr/sbin/smbd -D
  318 admin       508 D   /usr/sbin/smbd -D
  322 admin       260 S   httpd eth1
  323 admin       896 R   /usr/sbin/smbd -D
  324 admin       392 R   ps a

and there are multiple instances of smbd running, is that OK? I am not sure, but I think, after I get the error the number of running smbd increases... Log file for smbd looks like this:

[2005/11/20 17:38:53, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:call_nt_transact_ioctl(2516)
  call_nt_transact_ioctl: Currently not implemented.
[2005/11/22 22:56:57, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:call_nt_transact_ioctl(2516)
  call_nt_transact_ioctl: Currently not implemented.
[2005/11/22 23:02:22, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:call_nt_transact_ioctl(2516)
  call_nt_transact_ioctl: Currently not implemented.
[2005/11/22 23:19:54, 0] smbd/nttrans.c:call_nt_transact_ioctl(2516)
  call_nt_transact_ioctl: Currently not implemented.

Any ideas what could cause this problem? Maybe it is Linux-FAT32 problem? I would like to use FAT32 as a filesystem, as this lets me easy to unplug external drive from router and connect directly to my PC when I need this... With ext3 this would be not so easy to do :-)

Thank you,
Laimonas

[Oleg]

Yes, this is a large files and FAT32 problem. You've to use ext3.
As for number of smbd processes - everything is fine, it uses one process per client.

[cunami]

Yes, this is a large files and FAT32 problem. You've to use ext3.
As for number of smbd processes - everything is fine, it uses one process per client.

Well this file, which I've tried to copy was less than 100 MB...


Can FAT32 cause such problem as well?:

I have large file (~ 3.5 GB ), per Samba it is visible, but not visible per FTP. I have copied it to drive, when drive was connected directly to computer (via USB).