Samba + Roaming Profiles

On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 10:42, Kevin Brown wrote:
> > Just a point of clarification here. Must my samba file server be
> > configured as a PDC in order to host roaming profiles?
>
> It shouldn't. Last time I dealt with NT4 roaming profiles they could reside on
> any SMB filesystem.

Hmm. That was my original thought too. However, here is what happens.
Relevant bits of /etc/samba/smb.conf look like this on my old Samba
server 2.0.7:

workgroup = HOME
security = user
encrypt passwords = yes
smb passwd file = /etc/samba/smbpasswd
wins support = yes

 [Profiles]
    path = /home/samba/profiles
    browseable = no
    guest ok = yes
    writeable = yes
    create mask = 0777  <--tried 0700 also
    directory mask = 0777  <--tried 0700 also

On a worm2K box that is configured to be in the same HOME workgroup (not
domain) as the samba server, I logged in as local 'administrator' and
changed user account shari to have a 'Profile path' of
'\\192.168.2.1\profiles\shari'.

I confirmed that I could 'browse' to \\192.168.2.1\profiles and see
folders there. No pre-existing shari folder.

I logged off and logged on as shari. Worm2K says "a server copy of the
profile folder already exists that does not have the correct security.
Either the current user or the Administrator's group must be the owner
of the folder." However, I see that a shari directory was created on
the samba box under /home/samba/profiles/. The owner is the UNIX user
'shari' and perms are 777.

On the Worm2K box, if I browse to \\192.168.2.1\profiles and look at the
properties of the new 'shari' folder there, I see that the owner of the
folder is SERVER\shari. If I change it to CLIENT\shari, it just changes
back. I also tried deleting the new folder from the server and manually
creating it _from_ the worm2K box. Same result.

Seems like user/perms mapping problem between the two. Actually, it
seems like a lack of understanding on my part of HOW user/perms are
mapped between the two.

If the samba server was in a domain or a PDC by itself, I'm guessing the
perms problem would go away, because there no longer be a distinction
between SERVER\shari and CLIENT\shari.

Thoughts?
...Kevin