File Sharing Difficulties Frustrate Tiger Admins

rmallico wrote in to mention a story currently running on Eweek about technical difficulties sites running Tiger are experiencing. From the article: "A number of sites running Apple's new 'Tiger' operating system are experiencing problems with SMB file sharing and authentication with Microsoft's Active Directory, Ziff Davis Internet News has learned. Although Apple Computer Inc.'s Tiger increases support for Server Message Block file sharing and Active Directory, several sources say that the Finder fails to log on to Windows and Linux Samba file servers."

Comments

Oh, right, error code -36!

[xiando]

The most interesting thing I noticed in the article was actually that the error message for the Connect to Server failure is "error code -36". A friend of mine who uses Mac OS X has always complained much about how the Mac never tells you anything about what is actually wrong, only gives you a number that is in no way useful for solving the problem. It is amazing this is still the case in Tiger, what in the world would be wrong with giving at least a tiny bit of information or just a hint of what is wrong? Even the good old Windows blue screen is more informative than "error code 4".

Re:Oh, right, error code -36!

[JonXP]

Remember, Apple's mantra is 'Users are Idiots'. They simplify everything from the buttons on the mice to the error messages.

Really, it's probably part of their 'Keep the UI as SIMPLE as possible' ideals. If they don't think a standard user will be able to do anything with that information, don't even bother telling them.

Re:Oh, right, error code -36!

[Megane]

Those low negative number error codes date back to 1984 with the original release of the Macintosh, but usually only a few come up. When you see them with OS X, you know you've got something with roots in the old days, like the HFS file system. And then there are the larger negative numbers (usually 4 digits) from when blocks of error codes were assigned willy-nilly to stuff like the Appletalk network stack and AFP file sharing.

And -36 doesn't help even if you know what it means, because it's just a generic "I/O error". Originally it was for media problems (like an unreadable floppy), usually accompanied by strange sounds from your disk drive, but for a network file system it's kind of silly. So even the old-timers say "yeah, that sure tells me a lot".

Other -3x range errors include file not found (-34?), end of file (-39?), and file name too long. Another good one is -50, parameter error. Well, duuuuuuh, which parameter? What's wrong with it?

The worst one to see is -127. That one means your file system data structures are in deep doodoo.

But seriously, the days of 400K floppy disks are long gone. It's total laziness that nobody bothers to print a text error message along with the number. I've been doing that in my own code since the days of 800K floppies. Even printing out the ten most common error messages as text helps most of the time.

Re:Oh, right, error code -36!

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that or someone needs to take SMB out back and put it down for the count like Ol' Yeller. It's unreliable and pretty inefficient, in my experience.

Re:Oh, right, error code -36!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a little of both.

having worked tech support, I know what the standard response to "what was the error message"

the answer is "I don't know..I closed the window"

so most people don't read them..they just make the window go away.

the ones that DO read...then immediately want you to replace their I/O by this weekend. I mean..how log can it take to get a new I/O? and what went wrong with the I/O that's in there?

Here's a bet:

[Capt'n Hector]

Whatever the issue is, my guess is Apple will have it fixed within the month. It's possible they will have a patch out by the end of next week. It's just a bug, and last time I heard, unless active measures need to be taken by network admins NOW to shore up potential security issues, bugs aren't news. Major new OS versions will always have wrinkles to iron out, stop the presses!

Re:Here's a bet:

[xiando]

Really? "Major new OS versions will always have wrinkles to iron out, stop the presses!"? The reason for doing beta testing would be what? Is it too much to ask that vendors use beta versions of their own software in-house for a month before they release it? Is it too much to ask that they ship the software to a small number of beta testers before the final release in order to find those wrinkles and iron them out? If I were to pay for commercial software, would I be paying THEM for doing the work of beta-testing for them? If you bought a car, would you really accept that it broke down after a few hours, even if the store told you that "it is a new car, you can expect some wrinkles to be ironed out, we will take it into service and give you it back in working condition in a few weeks?"

Re:Here's a bet:

[Graymalkin]

So, say it worked great in all beta builds until the gold master. It had been tested and came up green so in latter beta builds it wasn't tested anymore because it worked. Then say sometime between the last beta build and the GM (which are a few builds apart) a butterfly flapped its wings bug caused SMB mounting to break in Finder. Errors happen because systems are complex and there's dependancies that depend on more dependancies, a error in the chain can cause really weird errors in seemingly unrelated parts of the system.

Your car analogy is flawed. New cars do have bugs when they roll off the lot. You would be really surprised at the number of real issues every car or every batch of cars has off the factory floor. Many times however these flaws and bugs don't crop up and cause a noticeable problem for a long time if ever. There are some problems that do crop up quickly however. It would be one thing if the manufacturer ignored this and went on its merry way. It is entirely another if they repair your car for you. I just had the dome light fixed in my car because of a faulty latch, should I be screaming about the manufacturer not having any QA? No.

The car analogy also falls flat when compared to something as easily changed as computer software. A patch containing the repair can be very small and be distributed to millions of affected users very quickly. If your car is in the shop for a week you're out one car. If SMB shares don't show up in Finder's Browse window properly you're not out SMB shares as you can work around the problem if need be.

Re:Here's a bet:

[BasilBrush]

Yeah, where can he possibly be between 4:29am and 6:29am? Clearly it's a cover up!

Re:Here's a bet:

[eraserewind]

It had been tested and came up green so in latter beta builds it wasn't tested anymore because it worked.

No offense, but what the hell sort of software engineering practice do you call that?

Re:Here's a bet:

[NeedleSurfer]

I guess your post and the parent one will be switched when a new Windows or Linux release gets out.

fanboys... pfffff

A typical slashdot response.

[King_of_Prussia]

If this were a windows article there would have been an almost unanimous uproar about microsoft's ability to release a stable piece of software without major bugs. Look at the nature of the bug too -- how long until somebody blames this on windows being too "monopolistic" and deliberately making it hard for tiger to share or authenticate?

I've said it before, and I guess I'll have to say it once again -- zealotry should have no place on slashdot. If Microsoft turned around and released a perfect, bug free operating system that interfaced perfectly with all the competitions' offerings, there would be a 1000 comment shitstorm of complaint as the flock of rabid posters decried them for not releasing the source, or for charging for the software. Compare that to this, where a major operating system has been released with a large and quite frankly obvious bug present, and along come the apple fanboys. GET OVER IT. Base your opinion on the product, not the company, or the shiny form factor, or the how overpriced it is.

Don't get me wrong, as I sit here I am listening to a 40 gig iPOS, and I use a powerbook when I need mobility, so I don't have any bias against apple themselves, just their little army of braindead followers who would buy and defend a box of Steve Jobs' shit if it had a pretty shape and the apple logo.

Hah, and it seems after previewing the parent comment is already rated insightful. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Re:A typical slashdot response.

[elecngnr]

I will just say at the beginning of this post that I am a fan of Apple products. I try not to jump in on every Apple story on this site because I think there is enough preaching to the choir on this site. Having said that, I will continue on this thread. I have used Windows machines for many years in addition to using Apple. The reason why there is no huge uproar, in my opinion, is because I know it wll be fixed soon. I also know that the fix will make the product better (i.e. it will NOT be SP2). It is not so much that we are brain dead followers....I would not just drink some kool aid if Steve asks me to....I think many of us have just had good experiences with their products. I upgraded to Tiger on Monday of this week. I expected some hiccups and there have been a few. However, they are not major hiccups and I do not expect to be dealing with them for long.

Re:I don't use samba anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not alone, I use nfs too... but we're few and far between... the windows "is easier and "just works"" morons and lunatics are far more numerous... sad to say. I've been advocating NFS mounts for as long as I can recall... yet nobody listens, everyone wants SMB... to connect to those "higher performing fully responsible windows boxes that microsoft says they take responsability for (hmmm nobody's read the EULA but me I take it) :)

-Daedalus

This is normal

[Bones3D_mac]

These kinds of things are the normal evolution of Mac OS X after each major release. Get new features and added speed as an initial tradeoff for lower stability and reliability. Anyone who has used the Mac OS since the early days of OS X should know this.

I'm sorry, but if you are installing Tiger onto a mission-critical system, you deserve the problems you get. Give the software time to mature before rushing to employ it in your networks.

No Admin worth their salt installs a new OS

[Beebos]

If an "admin" installs a brand spanking new OS immediately after release, that admin should have his pocket protector taken away from him. Particularly if one is working in a business or other mission critical environment, installing new OS without giving time for new bugs to be discovered and addressed is a sure sign incompetance.

Re:No Admin worth their salt installs a new OS

[caseih]

This is surely true, although Apple apparently does not think so. Recently I received two e-mails from Apple's development team regarding bug reports that I and others have filed for Panther Server regarding critical OpenLDAP bugs. In a nutshell the e-mails said, "we think the bugs don't exist in Tiger Server. Please upgrade to Tiger Server and tell us if this is the case." I was stunned. I sent them a strongly worded response to tell them that this was not acceptable. Apple just doesn't yet understand what it takes to produce Enterprise software. We need very long support lifetimes (3-5 years minimum) and upgrading major OS versions outside of normal hardware replacement cycles (with proper testing) is *never* done except in extraordinary circumstances. Right now I am very unhappy with Apple. Does anyone even know what the life expentancy of Panther Server is? What about Tiger? I can't find this information anywhere and Apple has not yet responded to my queries. Judging by the terrible LDAP problems I had with OS 10.3 (not fixed until 10.3.9!) I am in no hurry to put Tiger Server into production. I learned my lesson the hard way.

Now that AFP support under linux is much better, I'm almost certainly going to go back to Linux for my main file servers. At least it is a known quantity.

Re:Finder and Linux Samba shares

[Anonymous Coward]

well, it has the overhead of the progress bar that
people are addicted to. In terminal , you just do a 'ditto' and then wait unless you chose verbose.

Wait a minute...

[catdevnull]

Hey, I like Macs. I think Apple rules the roost in the OS world, etc. But hey, reality check:
SysAdmin Rule #1: If you depend on it, and it works fine the way it is, don't mess with it. [If it ain't broke...]
SysAdmin Rule #2: If you want to mess with it, test it before deploying it.

Why the hell did people install a .0 release and expect that it would not be without bugs? I say if any sysadmins out there were silly enough to make a hasty upgrade before testing (ignoring the above caveats) they deserve the problems they're experiencing.

We waited to deploy WinXP until the first service pack was released--and that saved our ass. I think it's ignorant to ignore that principle on the Mac side as well--esp. with a major update.

Early adopters are unpaid beta testers. Congratulations--you found the bugs!

Apple or not...

[phillymjs]

...you're a fool and deserve everything you get if you put a week-old OS on production hardware without doing non-production testing or having a fall-back.

If you insist, however, do it right. Prep a build of the new OS and put it on its own hard drive in the machine of your one or two most clueful end users. Let them beat on it for a while and document their problems/questions as they try to do their work. Once in a while go through the list and address their fixable issues. If they happen upon a show-stopper, they simply boot from the drive with the old build on it and use that until the next service release appears. Then you apply it, and test again. Repeat as necessary until the number of issues is low enough that you can confidently deploy the new OS build to all end users.

I have used this technique to great effect at several of my Mac clients, though I don't even consider giving them the newest OS until the .2 or .3 service releases have been out for a few weeks. A couple of my clients used to question this conservative method until some renegade users bought and installed Panther right after its release (without authorization from anyone) and ended up being basically unable to work until I reverted them to the standard OS/applications build.

As for OS X Server, that gets tested in my company's lab and on my bench at home from the day we get it, but it doesn't get rolled out anywhere until .4, and even then we clone the old drive to a FireWire drive before upgrading, just to be safe.

~Philly

Does it matter?

[jleq]

99.9% of admins who know how to do their jobs correctly didn't go out and buy Tiger the first day, but chose to wait until a few bugs were worked out and the OS was generally seen as in good condition for mass-use. 99.9% of admins are casually going about their job instead of frantically trying to fix a problem that didn't need to be created in the first place.

Re:Exception

[Bishop]

There are two problems:

1) you have no idea how much testing Sarge has actually undergone. For all we know only 5% of users are using Debian/Sarge on a regular basis. While in theory any package in Sarge should have gone through two weeks of Sid testing first, there have been bugs in Sarge packages.

2) Sarge may be the best release ever, but have you tested it in your environment? Is the new version of an application going to be able to import your existing data?

Regardless of the quality of the software a new release must always be tested first.