Is there a way to force Linux to actually look at the network to see what's there ?

Deadjasper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
1,794
Keeping it simple. I have 3 boxes, a Linux box, a Windows 7 box and a Windows Server box. The Linux and Windows 7 boxes are up and running. I fire up the server, it boots normally. The Windows box sees it, can connect to shares, can remote into it. It is invisible to the Linux box. If I wait long enough it will eventually show up. My question is the title of this thread.

TIA

OK, just changed the ip address of the server and the Linux box saw it immediately. This makes no sense. There is no ip conflict. This problem appeared after I shut down the server to replace the CMOS battery. Prior to that all was well. No settings in Windows Server changed and I can't imagine what in the BIOS could have caused this. Of course I had to redo all the BIOS settings but this wasn't an issue as I knew what the all should be. :confused:
 
Last edited:

naib

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,289
check what you have configured as the dns. typically this is your router (and then your router queries wider). If windows is using your router but your linux box is using something different (say your ISP directly or googles... ) then it would not know.
Linux will query a dns entry everytime while windows will use a cache
 

Deadjasper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
1,794
check what you have configured as the dns. typically this is your router (and then your router queries wider). If windows is using your router but your linux box is using something different (say your ISP directly or googles... ) then it would not know.
Linux will query a dns entry everytime while windows will use a cache
Thanks. Just checked. Linux box is using the router.
 

acascianelli

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
6,872
This is not DNS related. There is a Windows service that provides other workstations on the network information such as workstation name, shares available, etc; I had NETBIOS in mind but I'm almost certain that's NOT it. Sorry, not a Windows guy but this sounds like a Samba related problem.

I assume SMB/CIFS share visibility is what you're referring to.
 

Deadjasper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
1,794
Yea, SMB/CIFS. Dunno about NETBIOS.

Would you happen to know of a good Linux networking site that's reasonably up to date? All I can find are outdated and thus irrelevant.
 

naib

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,289
is samba configured to be in the same workgroup?
 

Deadjasper

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
1,794
Yea, the default is workgroup for both Windows and Linux. I've never changed it.
 

B00nie

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
8,275
The problem may be related to Windows switching to strict SMBv3. It broke many legacy linux features that relied on more lax security.
 

Lunar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
400
The problem may be related to Windows switching to strict SMBv3. It broke many legacy linux features that relied on more lax security.
Just to provide a bit of hopefully helpful expansion to this. SAMBA itself has no issues with SMBv1 through SMBv3. The problem comes down to the different desktop environments and FUSE or FUSE-like features built into them. For example, GVFS in GNOME can't resolve shares on the network that have SMBv1 disabled. It has no issues with connecting to them via SMBv2 or v3 if you manually connect, i.e. smb://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, but it can't resolve the name in a query, and therefore the machine won't be displayed in the list of machines on the network in Nautilus. This has been an incredibly annoying issue for me personally. I know I could setup NFS shares, but I honestly can't be bothered, nor should I have to in my opinion.

I used GNOME and GVFS as an example because I don't know how KDE and KIO handle SMBv2 and 3 when it comes to network discovery. Haven't used them in quite some time. But, basically any DE that uses GVFS (GNOME, MATE, and Budgie just to name a few) as it's network share backend will have issues with any CIFS share that has SMBv1 disabled.
 

Chuklr

Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
758
Just to provide a bit of hopefully helpful expansion to this. SAMBA itself has no issues with SMBv1 through SMBv3. The problem comes down to the different desktop environments and FUSE or FUSE-like features built into them. For example, GVFS in GNOME can't resolve shares on the network that have SMBv1 disabled. It has no issues with connecting to them via SMBv2 or v3 if you manually connect, i.e. smb://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, but it can't resolve the name in a query, and therefore the machine won't be displayed in the list of machines on the network in Nautilus. This has been an incredibly annoying issue for me personally. I know I could setup NFS shares, but I honestly can't be bothered, nor should I have to in my opinion.

I used GNOME and GVFS as an example because I don't know how KDE and KIO handle SMBv2 and 3 when it comes to network discovery. Haven't used them in quite some time. But, basically any DE that uses GVFS (GNOME, MATE, and Budgie just to name a few) as it's network share backend will have issues with any CIFS share that has SMBv1 disabled.
The OP in this thread https://hardforum.com/threads/distro-confusion.1995719/ indicates he's thinking about using MATE for his DE. Sounds like he has been using it and that might be his problem.
 
Top