So I can't see my files on the server using W7 or vista, this files are moved to the server using smbmount from the unraid.

I can see all my files from my tvix using NFS protocol.

 

I have Export (SMB): set to Export read only

 

Below is a example of a new file copied to my server

 

drwxr-xr-x 1 root root        3440 Nov 21 16:27 ../

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root      138351 Nov 28 17:13 tvix.jpg*

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root       56805 Nov 28 17:13 front_cover.tvixie*

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root        7914 Nov 28 17:13 folder.jpg*

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 11736332875 Nov 28 17:13 xxx-xxxxx.mkv*

-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root        1998 Nov 28 17:13 MovieInfo.tvixie*

 

Is something wrong ?

Using version: 4.5-beta11

 

OBS, My very first files that was moved to the server is fine , its all my latest files I can't see, so I think it could be some of the latest beta that have doing something wrong with the permission ??

 

EDIT

This files are OK, look at the permission ? it's a capital S in there.

 

-rwxrwSrwx  1 root root      39468 Sep 17  2008 xxxxx.srt*

-rwxrwSrwx  1 root root 4700504201 Sep 17  2008 xxxx.mkv*

-rwxrwSrwx  1 root root     104225 Sep 17  2008 front_cover.tvixie*

-rwxrwSrwx  1 root root       9280 Sep 17  2008 folder.jpg*

-rwxrwSrwx  1 root root     118541 Sep 17  2008 TViX.jpg*

-rwxrwSrwx  1 root root       1513 Sep 17  2008 MovieInfo.tvixie*

-rwxrwSrwx  1 root root      11776 Jul 20 08:56 Thumbs.db*

 

EDIT 2

 

Added a syslog 

 

//Peter

See the previous posts dealing with "map hidden" SAMBA options [ http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=4674.msg43584#msg43584 ]

Yes this problem is due to use of Samba mapping of System/Hidden/Archive bits (so that these bits work correctly from Windows standpoint).  The easiest way to solve this is to 'chmod' the files, e.g.,

 

chmod 700 *

 

One of the (major) changes I want to make in 5.x series is to dump Samba-specific user validation to shares.  This will end a lot of grief in use of other protocols such as NFS and AFP, as well as simplify migration to/from Active Directory; however, will require user to run a command to change the ownership on all existing files.  Hence I will wait until 5.x series to do this.

Ok, thanks looking forward to 5.x  ,  I did chmod - R 766 * , is that bad ? or is it safer with chmod - R 700 *

One of the (major) changes I want to make in 5.x series is to dump Samba-specific user validation to shares.  This will end a lot of grief in use of other protocols such as NFS and AFP, as well as simplify migration to/from Active Directory; however, will require user to run a command to change the ownership on all existing files.  Hence I will wait until 5.x series to do this.

 

This will be a major change for those of us with a lot of files.  Will we be able to make this change one disk at a time or in some other staged manner?  Any way to start the process in phases before upgrading to 5.x?

 

Ok, thanks looking forward to 5.x  ,  I did chmod - R 766 * , is that bad ? or is it safer with chmod - R 700 *

 

It doesn't matter.  When files are created via Windows (SMB), they get permissions 700, but 766 is harmless.  If you go and set the Hidden and System bits on a file and then look at permissions via console, you'll see they're now 711 (or 777 if started out at 766).

One of the (major) changes I want to make in 5.x series is to dump Samba-specific user validation to shares.  This will end a lot of grief in use of other protocols such as NFS and AFP, as well as simplify migration to/from Active Directory; however, will require user to run a command to change the ownership on all existing files.  Hence I will wait until 5.x series to do this.

 

This will be a major change for those of us with a lot of files.  Will we be able to make this change one disk at a time or in some other staged manner?  Any way to start the process in phases before upgrading to 5.x?

 

 

Don't worry, there will be instructions on how to do this.

 

This will end a lot of grief in use of other protocols such as NFS and AFP, as well as simplify migration to/from Active Directory; however, will require user to run a command to change the ownership on all existing files.  Hence I will wait until 5.x series to do this.

 

Is this the end of using NFS protocol?  :'(  This is the only protocol that works when playing high bitrate BD movies.

 

This will end a lot of grief in use of other protocols such as NFS and AFP, as well as simplify migration to/from Active Directory; however, will require user to run a command to change the ownership on all existing files.  Hence I will wait until 5.x series to do this.

 

Is this the end of using NFS protocol?  :'(  This is the only protocol that works when playing high bitrate BD movies.

 

No you misunderstand - the way permissions on files and directories are set up currently, and the fact that all files are owned by 'root' make using other protocols more difficult (though works well with SMB).  What I want to change is to use normal u/g/o permissions, but this will require some 'chmod's to take place...

 

Aside from that, why do you say NFS is only protocol that works with HD?  Is this with a particular player?  Many people routinely use SMB with HTPC's for flawless HD playback.

OK thanks for that    I'm using TviX 6500 when playing full BD with bit rate around 30mbit, and using samba is stutter, using NFS is flawless 

 

see this post -> http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=4208.msg42393#msg42393,

 

 

Many people routinely use SMB with HTPC's for flawless HD playback.

 

This people perhaps using low bit rate MKV 

OK thanks for that    I'm using TviX 6500 when playing full BD with bit rate around 30mbit, and using samba is stutter, using NFS is flawless 

 

see this post -> http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=4208.msg42393#msg42393,

 

 

Many people routinely use SMB with HTPC's for flawless HD playback.

 

This people perhaps using low bit rate MKV 

 

Ok, well 30Mbit/sec is still only 3MB/sec, which is very slow.. their SMB implementation must be pretty bad 

Yes I also think that  But is a very good MP