Will swat interfere with emhttp?

[xamindar]

I just set up swat to configure samba but am worried that emhttp/unraid will interfere with it. Anyone know if it will and if so how to disable unraid from doing anything with samba?

[xamindar]

So no one here configures Samba on their own? I can hardly believe everyone is happy with the simple settings unraid allows when there are so many more that can be used in samba. How can I manually configure Samba and make sure unraid doesn't interfere?

 

Sadly, "emhttp --help" gives an error that no such option is available. I thought that was a standard in programs to have that option.

[Joe L.]

So no one here configures Samba on their own? I can hardly believe everyone is happy with the simple settings unraid allows when there are so many more that can be used in samba. How can I manually configure Samba and make sure unraid doesn't interfere?

 

Sadly, "emhttp --help" gives an error that no such option is available. I thought that was a standard in programs to have that option.

There is no option to disable emhttp's handling of SAMBA.

 

You can put local options in /boot/config/smb-extra.conf (create it if it does not exist)

 

It is sourced into the main smb configuration emhttp maintains.

 

There is only one option to emhttp I am aware of.  (It is Lime-tech closed source)

-p port

will start it on an alternate port instead of port 80.

 

Joe L.

[xamindar]

There is no option to disable emhttp's handling of SAMBA.

 

You can put local options in /boot/config/smb-extra.conf (create it if it does not exist)

 

It is sourced into the main smb configuration emhttp maintains.

 

There is only one option to emhttp I am aware of.  (It is Lime-tech closed source)

-p port

will start it on an alternate port instead of port 80.

 

Joe L.

That's a shame. Closed source shouldn't mean no documentation or very controlled customization.

 

I would like to ask Limetech to include options to disable their program from interfering with other programs in future versions. It should make their program more useful and therefore more valuable.

 

Could we get an option to disable samba and nfs in the future please?

 

Thanks Joe for the suggestion. I'll give it a try.

[bubbaQ]

unRAID is an appliance, not an application.  An option to disable samba is counterintuitive, and not realistic.  No programmer is going to do that kind of work for a tiny minority of users who are trying to use the product in a nonstandard way that is not beneficial to the mainstream.

[xamindar]

I guess that explains why it seems to attract a lot of Apple users. Like Apple products, it seems to be designed to performed only what the maker wants, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm of the crowd that likes to get the most out of a computer. I guess what I am looking for is really an unRAID type application that I can add on an existing OS. Too bad there isn't an unRAID version like that. Oh well, I saw no harm in at least asking for the option. How are companies to know what people want and are willing to pay for if we don't ask for it?

[Joe L.]

I guess that explains why it seems to attract a lot of Apple users. Like Apple products, it seems to be designed to performed only what the maker wants, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm of the crowd that likes to get the most out of a computer. I guess what I am looking for is really an unRAID type application that I can add on an existing OS. Too bad there isn't an unRAID version like that. Oh well, I saw no harm in at least asking for the option. How are companies to know what people want and are willing to pay for if we don't ask for it?

Good point...

 

The 5.0 series of unRAID will provide some of the "events" you could use to do what you are asking BUT you would basically need to stop samba, change its "default" configuration, and then re-start it every time the array is started.    On the 4.X series, there are no such events.  You can "deduce" them, but it is not as easy. 

 

Since you are obviously more technical than most unRAID users, it might be something for you to try.    As already stated, unRAID is marked as an appliance and the guts of linux/samba/nfs are hidden from most users for most operations.

 

Joe L.

[bubbaQ]

Nothing will be everything for everyone.  There never will be enough resources to put in every feature possible.  So the result is compromise.  If your needs are in the center of the bell curve, you will benefit.  If your needs are that of an outlier, you will likely not.

 

UnRAID is moderately extensible, and complete hackable.  You can almost certainly get SWAT to work with some scripts, but it will involve killing samba, moving some files, creating symlinks, and futzing with it for a while.  You may have to write some scripts to fake emhttp into believing it is handling samba itself.