On May 21, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On 5/21/2010 9:44 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:04:36AM -0400, Ross Walker wrote:
>>
>>> By any chance did someone add smbd to xinetd?
>>>
>>> If so then xinetd has the port open and the smbd process will not
>>> bind.
>>
>> Nope. Not sure that would explain why a slight difference in how it's
>> invoked, through the same init.d script, makes the difference in
>> whether it
>> runs. That is:
>>
>> sh /etc/init.d/smb start (and "/usr/sbin/smbd -D")
>>
>> which always works from console, differs from
>>
>> /etc/init.d/smb start (and "service smb start" too)
>>
>> which doesn't ever work on this box, how? This is when smb starts
>> with
>> "#!/bin/sh" anyway. Only thing I can figure is that there may be a
>> subtle
>> difference in timing, a slowing down just enough to make the startup
>> tolerant of hardware that's right on the margin. There's no
>> significant
>> difference (if any) in envars.
>
> The only difference here 'should' be that explicitly running 'sh' will
> invoke your own shell aliases and search PATH to execute sh, where if
> you omit it you'll get the #!/bin/sh interpreter specified in the
> script
> itself. Is there anything in your aliases or anything before /bin in
> PATH where the working shell might be found?
>
> Or, perhaps this difference is coincidental and something is randomly
> killing smbd. You might be able to see something if you comment out
> the
> nmbd startup in the script and
> strace -f /etc/init.d/smb start
> but it will only be useful if smbd dies and you can see a failing
> system
> call causing it.
Or maybe a corrupt env file in /etc/profile.d?
-Ross
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
