@scottalanmiller said in File Sharing Issue Windows 7:

@Dashrender said in File Sharing Issue Windows 7:

@scottalanmiller said in File Sharing Issue Windows 7:

@Dashrender said in File Sharing Issue Windows 7:

@scottalanmiller said in File Sharing Issue Windows 7:

@WrCombs said in File Sharing Issue Windows 7:

@scottalanmiller said in File Sharing Issue Windows 7:

Literally just got off of a meeting where we put the last piece in place for our first in house POS system, BTW 😉

i'm interested.

Not for hospitality industry. But this is our first foray into POS and crossing over industries in the future is obviously very possible.

you made it for the Vets?

Yes

You guys should look into making pharmacy software, you could likely make a killing, and be light years ahead of the seemingly junk crap that's out there now.

That's a great idea. And my family is all pharmacists, so we have like endless direct access to resources.

I really don't know the requirements for the interconnectedness - which this are... but yeah, so many of the systems are just old as F.

Bit of a necro post, but I'm finally getting back around to NFS review for RHCSA. nfsstat -s tells me I'm using version 4.

New build? Create the "admin" account that will "own" the share.
Then use rsync to upload everything.
Then use the occ command to rescan the directory.

@Tim_G said in Fedora 26: connect to Windows File share:

@FATeknollogee said in Fedora 26: connect to Windows File share:

@Tim_G said in Fedora 26: connect to Windows File share:

Try this:

mount -t cifs -o username=administrator,password=urPassword,domain=domain.local //fileserver/share /mountLocation

No workie, says "Host is down"

Makes me think that your Linux box is trying to connect via an unsupported method.

For example, do you have SMB 1.0 turned off on your Windows file server... and your Linux box is trying to connect via SMB 1.0?

I tried calling out "SMB3.0", but, I get the error "For more deatils see mount (8)"

@JaredBusch said in NextCloud video/file sharing: restrict access?:

That will, of course, not stop the resharing issue. But that is not what you were asking.

I was trying to keep him on goal, rather than stuck in the weeds 🙂

I use https://www.wetransfer.com/ myself. I don't need to transfer huge files and when I do, I use a Dropbox link. I got a TB with them, so uploading and sharing is no biggie for me. I must say, though... transfer.sh is pretty cool.

@thecreativeone91 said:

@thanksajdotcom said:

@thecreativeone91 said:

@thanksajdotcom said:

However, if I can get something for free instead of paying for it, I will not apologize for that.

That's what people I know who are on welfare say....

Some people who are on welfare deserve to be. Many don't but don't tear down those who have a legitimate right to it because of those who don't.

No one deserves to be on it. it's it's only an opportunity for them to get back on their feet. No one is entitled to get free money. You might say they deserve to get a better paying job so they don't need to be on it.

I can see where you're coming from, but the program is there for a purpose. The purpose may be good, but how people abuse the system is not. Again, I'm sure there are plenty of people who have taken advantage of welfare and then been successful at getting back on their feet. Like a kitchen knife, it can be used to make delicious food, or as the weapon of choice of a serial killer. The knife is just a tool. Don't fix the tool, fix how people use it.

@g.jacobse said:

I agree - that type of message just tells me that I don't want to partner with you. But it is a form of cold calling...

It sure is, something that we block completely. There is good and bad cold calling, though. If you cold call me and ask to speak to me, I'm not going to be pissed, I'll just hang up. But if you cold call and demand to set something up rather than politely asking if we can.... we are done and you are actively blocked and will never get our business.

There is legitimate sales and downright unprofessional "never do business with them" sales. A company doing these tactics definitely does not believe in their own product and is trying to get sales through an intimidation style rather than through presenting a good product.

@coliver said:

From my understanding a hairpin is basically a network bridge like a router. It just takes all info going in and passes it to the appropriate point on the other side.

On your linux server does the Pertino connection appear as an independent interface?

Yes.

ifconfig results:

eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0c:29:4b:35:b2
inet addr:172.16.255.20 Bcast:172.16.255.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::20c:29ff:fe4b:35b2/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:127046 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:283744 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:33435018 (33.4 MB) TX bytes:436448592 (436.4 MB)

lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
RX packets:193 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:193 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:29941 (29.9 KB) TX bytes:29941 (29.9 KB)

pertino0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 7e:a6:0f:81:df:5f
inet addr:50.203.224.9 Bcast:50.203.224.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::7ca6:fff:fe81:df5f/64 Scope:Link
inet6 addr: 2001:470:813b::1bcf:0:f02/48 Scope:Global
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:2717 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1765 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:500
RX bytes:261357 (261.3 KB) TX bytes:464420 (464.4 KB)

@Dashrender said:

I'm a bit lost.

You have two NASs at home mounted to a Linux box, that you are then sharing to CIFS so you can mount them on a Windows box?

Is the Windows box not on the local LAN? If not I guess that's why you have Pertino as part of this, because you are Pertino'ing from a non local Windows box to the Linux box which is offering a pass-through to the NASs?

If your Windows box is local to NASs, why bother going through the Linux box?

The Windows box and the Linux box are both on the same LAN as the NASes. This is more so I can access the NASes easily remotely on my Pertino network.

@thanksaj said:

@Dashrender said:

Is one of those a VM? the hypervisor could be filtering stuff

The VM is where I'm trying to access my main physical workstation from. I doubt ESXi is filtering anything.

I don't have any filtering setup that I know of at least.

Well in a hosted system you don't have analogue lines so that isn't a factor for us.

I am in touch with http://www.accellion.com/ and checking at the Kite works enterprise. The parent company is using a product from this, but with limited storage space, but since they already use a product from accellion, I believe getting this approved would be much easier than introducing anything new. Got in touch with the local distributer and they agreed to give us a 15 days demo so we can test this in realtime. Its a software appliance which works with vmware/hyperv. Will share more details after the demo