Talk:WINS - Revision history

Jimbo: in my experience...

2007-10-13T13:28:05Z

in my experience...

DrModiford: Thanks Jimbo

2007-10-13T04:15:16Z

Thanks Jimbo

Jimbo: WINS != peer election model

2007-10-13T03:10:13Z

WINS != peer election model

DrModiford at 21:37, 12 October 2007

2007-10-12T21:37:43Z

New page

I confess to having a soft spot for WINS...

I appreciate that it is not specifically a Unix-based system but it is useful to those running Samba on FreeBSD as a file server in a Windows based workgroup or domain, so thought I'd get something started. I personally use it to simplify locating my Samba server in the workgroup for my various XBMC systems in order to access music and videos ;-)

I'll finish it off over the week-end and tie it back into Samba articles.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:28, 13 October 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:

	Regards, [[User:DrModiford\|Doctor Modiford]] 00:15, 13 October 2007 (EDT).		Regards, [[User:DrModiford\|Doctor Modiford]] 00:15, 13 October 2007 (EDT).
		+
		+	== in my experience... ==
		+
		+	... they won't. If your clients have a WINS server defined then they won't hold broadcast elections. Half of the point of having a WINS server is to keep clients from jamming up the network with broadcast chatter. If a client has a WINS server defined in its network configuration and that WINS server fails, the client - in my experience - [i]will not[/i] fall back on broadcast elections, but will just see an empty workgroup.
		+
		+	--[[User:Jimbo\|Jimbo]] 09:28, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:15, 13 October 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:

	You've got some conceptual errors in here. WINS is not the same thing as the normal peer election workgroup model. While they both accomplish the same idea, they're not directly related - you either do WINS or you do peer elections, not both. --[[User:Jimbo\|Jimbo]] 23:10, 12 October 2007 (EDT)		You've got some conceptual errors in here. WINS is not the same thing as the normal peer election workgroup model. While they both accomplish the same idea, they're not directly related - you either do WINS or you do peer elections, not both. --[[User:Jimbo\|Jimbo]] 23:10, 12 October 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Thanks Jimbo ==
		+
		+	I'm not a WINS expert by any means, so I may have misinterpreted the concept. What I was trying to explain was that in the absence of a WINS server, due to a failure (for example), the remaining hosts would elect a new master browser to maintain name resolution. Being a wiki environment the article is available for correction by someone who knows better.
		+
		+	I have no objection to having a Wikipedia style ''the references in this article are in dispute'' in relation to that section for the moment if you think it serves to confuse or mislead as presently written.
		+
		+	Regards, [[User:DrModiford\|Doctor Modiford]] 00:15, 13 October 2007 (EDT).

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:10, 13 October 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	I'll finish it off over the week-end and tie it back into Samba articles.		I'll finish it off over the week-end and tie it back into Samba articles.
		+
		+	== WINS != peer election model ==
		+
		+	You've got some conceptual errors in here. WINS is not the same thing as the normal peer election workgroup model. While they both accomplish the same idea, they're not directly related - you either do WINS or you do peer elections, not both. --[[User:Jimbo\|Jimbo]] 23:10, 12 October 2007 (EDT)