Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 12:12 am, James D. Parra wrote: I'm connecting to our windows' shares using names instead IP addresses using cifs and not experiencing any problems (Suse 9.1 -10.0). What is it that can't be done using cifs? One thing I noticed that I prefer using cifs over smbfs is if the windows box is rebooted, the cifs mount recovers while the smbfs mounts would timeout and become unmountable. I have hostnames on my LAN that smbfs can resolve but cifs cannot. The answer use a fixed IP address is not very satisfying if you're running fully dynamic DHCP. And to say don't use fully dynamic DHCP is to have the tail wagging the dog. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
Paul Abrahams wrote: I have hostnames on my LAN that smbfs can resolve but cifs cannot. The answer use a fixed IP address is not very satisfying if you're running fully dynamic DHCP. Could you define what you mean by fully dynamic DHCP? If your DHCP server is changing IP addresses constantly, even if it is updating the DNS server, it is misconfigured. It will give out the same IP to the same NIC every time, unless its range is too small for the number of machines connecting. -- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871 running openSUSE 10.2 x86_64 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 8:27 pm, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote: Could you define what you mean by fully dynamic DHCP? If your DHCP server is changing IP addresses constantly, even if it is updating the DNS server, it is misconfigured. It will give out the same IP to the same NIC every time, unless its range is too small for the number of machines connecting. In fact I have fixed IP addresses assigned using my router's DHCP configuration page, but I don't like the idea of counting on that -- it just seems unnecessarily rigid. Fully dynamic to me means that your configuration continues to work no matter how the router decides to assign the DHCP addresses --- even in the case, say, where you're adding machines to the LAN or removing them unpredictably. I wonder -- if I remove all my machines from the LAN for a month (so the router forgets the configuration) and reconnect them in a different order than I did originally, will the IP addresses still stay the same? I thought the way DHCP works is that when the router sees a machine it hasn't seen before, it assigns it the lowest available IP number in the DHCP range. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 22:13, Paul Abrahams wrote: In fact I have fixed IP addresses assigned using my router's DHCP configuration page, but I don't like the idea of counting on that -- it just seems unnecessarily rigid. Try not to think of static reservations as a rigid method of implementing DHCP, but rather a flexible way to implement static IP's. Static reservations are also quite reliable. Fully dynamic to me means that your configuration continues to work no matter how the router decides to assign the DHCP addresses --- even in the case, say, where you're adding machines to the LAN or removing them unpredictably. Agreed. Static reservations are a bit of a compromise with a fully dynamic configuration. I wonder -- if I remove all my machines from the LAN for a month (so the router forgets the configuration) and reconnect them in a different order than I did originally, will the IP addresses still stay the same? Yes. If you are really using static reservations, the router will not forget them. It is often the client that keeps the address the same. When a DHCP client renews its address, it will first send a unicast to the previous DHCP server requesting a renewal or new lease of the same IP that it last had. I thought the way DHCP works is that when the router sees a machine it hasn't seen before, it assigns it the lowest available IP number in the DHCP range. Most do this. (Assuming, of course, that no reservation exists for that MAC address, and the client did not request a different address) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
Mandag 12 marts 2007 00:47 skrev Felix Miata: On 2007/03/11 00:47 (GMT-0900) John Andersen apparently typed: On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a windows 9X share on the Linux machine. ... So again, the only thing missing is mounting a win9x share on linux. Except for the other thing that's missing. One can mount an OS/2 share with CIFS, but one can't actually use the 10.2 release version of those CIFS mounts due to CIFS LM timestamp bugs. All files and directories show year 1969 timestamps. SMBFS mounts with recompiled with SMBFS enabled 10.2 kernels have no such trouble. -- For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.John 3:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ I never was into kernel recompling and stuff. I quess this is a good time... - Any short how-to recompile ones kernel including the famous smbfs, getting it into GRUB (along with the original the save ones skin) ?? -- - Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Verner Kjærsgaard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Saturday 10 March 2007 10:38 pm, Kai Ponte wrote: On Saturday 10 March 2007 06:07:37 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: type smbfs isn't supported by the kernel that's a error message that i get from when i launch this commad smbmount //10.126.12.41/xxx /mnt/xxx -o username=xxx no problem with the password ... coz im sure it is rite overall good feature of 10.2, esp its visual graphic I don't have 10.2 yet - and am not going at all until this is fixed - but I've read on this and other lists that SMB was somehow deleted from SUSE at that version and replaced with something inferior. Look online. Whoever was responsible made a BIG mistake by removing smbfs support from the default kernel configuration that comes with 10.2. To recover from this goof, you need to have kernel sources installed. Then (as root) go to /usr/src/linux and type make xconfig. Hunt around and you'll find a checkbox where you can restore smbfs support. Then recompile the kernel according to the instructions in the README (it will take quite a while), install the new kernel, use Yast to renew the bootloader, and reboot. You'll then have your smbfs support. If you don't, try (as root) depmod. Supposedly smbfs was removed to make way for cifs, but cifs is definitely not ready for prime time, and there are things that work with smbfs that don't work with cifs (I've experienced them). The upshot: smbfs may not work better than it did in the past, but it works just as well. If it used to work for you it will work for you now as long as you install it. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Sunday 11 March 2007 5:47 am, John Andersen wrote: On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a windows 9X share on the Linux machine. Not so. There are some problems with host name resolution in cifs that don't occur with smbfs. I experienced them. Several people posted painful workarounds for those problems, but just sticking with smbfs is a far better solution. Avoid the cifs bleeding-edge solution for now. Some day it may be the way to go. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Monday 12 March 2007 2:22 pm, I wrote: Avoid the cifs bleeding-edge solution for now. Some day it may be the way to go. One more thought. There's nothing to stop you from installing both cifs and the older smbfs. You can mount cifs with the mount.cifs command. I suppose that if it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, use smbmount. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Monday 12 March 2007, Paul Abrahams wrote: Not so. There are some problems with host name resolution in cifs that don't occur with smbfs. I experienced them. Come to mention it, I seem to have seen the same thing, and had to put IP numbers in my cifs mount lines if fstab. Of course, I was in the habit of doing that even for smbfs on linux boxen. No such problem on windows machines tho -- _ John Andersen pgpNQNUQ4hvlt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Monday 12 March 2007, Paul Abrahams wrote: On Monday 12 March 2007 2:22 pm, I wrote: Avoid the cifs bleeding-edge solution for now. Some day it may be the way to go. One more thought. There's nothing to stop you from installing both cifs and the older smbfs. You can mount cifs with the mount.cifs command. I suppose that if it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, use smbmount. Paul So why the hell did Suse decide to outright DROP smbfs is they can co-exist? You would think they would put both in and solicit community feedback on which ones work better and what the problems were? Isn't that the purpose of opensuse? To find problems before they find their way into SLED? I'm getting a little tire of being a test bed with no choice in the matter. -- _ John Andersen pgpruehtOYFvG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Monday 12 March 2007 9:54 pm, John Andersen wrote: So why the hell did Suse decide to outright DROP smbfs is they can co-exist? You would think they would put both in and solicit community feedback on which ones work better and what the problems were? Isn't that the purpose of opensuse? To find problems before they find their way into SLED? I agree with you, of course. I'm getting a little tire of being a test bed with no choice in the matter. Well, you do have a choice: you can poke around until you fortuitiously discover that recompiling the kernel is the solution, and then go through the labor needed to implement that solution. Or you can live with the workarounds -- which neither of us was willing to do. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Monday 12 March 2007 9:54 pm, John Andersen wrote: So why the hell did Suse decide to outright DROP smbfs is they can co-exist? You would think they would put both in and solicit community feedback on which ones work better and what the problems were? Isn't that the purpose of opensuse? To find problems before they find their way into SLED? I agree with you, of course. I'm getting a little tire of being a test bed with no choice in the matter. Well, you do have a choice: you can poke around until you fortuitiously discover that recompiling the kernel is the solution, and then go through the labor needed to implement that solution. Or you can live with the workarounds -- which neither of us was willing to do. ~~~ I'm connecting to our windows' shares using names instead IP addresses using cifs and not experiencing any problems (Suse 9.1 -10.0). What is it that can't be done using cifs? One thing I noticed that I prefer using cifs over smbfs is if the windows box is rebooted, the cifs mount recovers while the smbfs mounts would timeout and become unmountable. ~James -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
Kai Ponte wrote: I don't have 10.2 yet - and am not going at all until this is fixed - but I've read on this and other lists that SMB was somehow deleted from SUSE at that version and replaced with something inferior. It was supposed to be replaced by cifs, which is smbfs embraced and extended to add some features useful for *nix hosts mounting shares from other *nix hosts. The idea is to make it more of a general network filesystem instead of just something for working with Windows hosts. Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. Like often happens it appears smbfs got deprecated and removed before the replacement was fully ready. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a windows 9X share on the Linux machine. Mounting WinNT/2K/XP/Vista shares works but the syntax is tricky. With cifs there is a good possibility to get rid of nfs and all the coordination of user-ids that is required for that. cifs might not be QUITE as fast as nfs, but it has a lot of other things going for it. So again, the only thing missing is mounting a win9x share on linux. -- _ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen: On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a windows 9X share on the Linux machine. Mounting WinNT/2K/XP/Vista shares works but the syntax is tricky. With cifs there is a good possibility to get rid of nfs and all the coordination of user-ids that is required for that. cifs might not be QUITE as fast as nfs, but it has a lot of other things going for it. So again, the only thing missing is mounting a win9x share on linux. -- _ John Andersen I use CIFS to mount a couple of SMB shares from my central file server into my laptop. I used to be able to run a script as an ordinary user (having chmod +2 some smbmount files) to accomplish this. - Now, I have to run the mounting scripts as root...annoying. What can I do? Here is the script: #!/bin/bash mount -t cifs //172.16.9.100/LNXfavk /home/vk/Documents/sun/favk-o username=vk,password=secret,workgroup=LINUXGROUP,rw This is from the directory containing it: -rwsr-sr-x 1 root users 898 18 dec 21:40 sun.sh -- - Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Verner Kjærsgaard SuSE10.2 BTW -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
Søndag 11 marts 2007 11:08 skrev Verner Kjærsgaard: Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen: I use CIFS to mount a couple of SMB shares from my central file server into my laptop. I used to be able to run a script as an ordinary user (having chmod +2 some smbmount files) to accomplish this. - Now, I have to run the mounting scripts as root...annoying. What can I do? Here is the script: #!/bin/bash mount -t cifs //172.16.9.100/LNXfavk /home/vk/Documents/sun/favk-o username=vk,password=secret,workgroup=LINUXGROUP,rw This is from the directory containing it: -rwsr-sr-x 1 root users 898 18 dec 21:40 sun.sh TYPO in my former message! should read: chmod +s, not chmod+2.. -- - Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Verner Kjærsgaard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Sunday 11 March 2007, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote: Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen: On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a windows 9X share on the Linux machine. Mounting WinNT/2K/XP/Vista shares works but the syntax is tricky. With cifs there is a good possibility to get rid of nfs and all the coordination of user-ids that is required for that. cifs might not be QUITE as fast as nfs, but it has a lot of other things going for it. So again, the only thing missing is mounting a win9x share on linux. -- _ John Andersen I use CIFS to mount a couple of SMB shares from my central file server into my laptop. I used to be able to run a script as an ordinary user (having chmod +2 some smbmount files) to accomplish this. - Now, I have to run the mounting scripts as root...annoying. What can I do? Here is the script: #!/bin/bash mount -t cifs //172.16.9.100/LNXfavk /home/vk/Documents/sun/favk-o username=vk,password=secret,workgroup=LINUXGROUP,rw This is from the directory containing it: -rwsr-sr-x 1 root users 898 18 dec 21:40 sun.sh Well I do a similar thing for one of my customers machines. I mount a samba share (from SLES 9) onto a subdirectory of his personal directory. It happens automatically at boot time. We want the samba server to handle permissions on its end and hence we use the noperms parameter. Without that the local linux machine attempts to manage permissions on the samba server. (Shades of nfs all over again). This line appears in /etc/fstab on the workstation, mounting a share on the machine named hai (sorry, this is bound to wrap): //hai/data /home/benh/data cifs auto,user,uid=1000,gid=1003,file_mode=0660,dir_mode=0770,ip=192.168.0.1,noacl,noperm,nocase,credentials=/home/benh/benscreds 1 2 If for some reason he unmounts that and has to remount it without a re-boot, the user parameter is given in fstab, and with kde, you can ask for an icon on the desktop to mount/unmount that drive (Configure Desktop /desktop/behavior/Device Icons/mounted+Unmounted samba shares) If there are some you don't want mounted automatically just remove the auto parameter. -- _ John Andersen pgp1JUyvEKr0R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
Søndag 11 marts 2007 11:27 skrev John Andersen: On Sunday 11 March 2007, Verner Kjærsgaard wrote: Søndag 11 marts 2007 10:47 skrev John Andersen: On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a windows 9X share on the Linux machine. [..] If there are some you don't want mounted automatically just remove the auto parameter. SOLVED! - thank you! -- - Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Verner Kjærsgaard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On 2007/03/11 00:47 (GMT-0900) John Andersen apparently typed: On Sunday 11 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote: Unfortunately it seems cifs isn't quite ready for primetime yet and is lacking some functionality that's in smbfs. The only thing it lacks IIRC is the ability to mount a windows 9X share on the Linux machine. ... So again, the only thing missing is mounting a win9x share on linux. Except for the other thing that's missing. One can mount an OS/2 share with CIFS, but one can't actually use the 10.2 release version of those CIFS mounts due to CIFS LM timestamp bugs. All files and directories show year 1969 timestamps. SMBFS mounts with recompiled with SMBFS enabled 10.2 kernels have no such trouble. -- For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Sunday 11 March 2007, Felix Miata wrote: One can mount an OS/2 share Let it die in peace Felix. ;-) -- _ John Andersen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On 2007/03/11 20:32 (GMT-0400) John Andersen apparently typed: On Sunday 11 March 2007, Felix Miata wrote: One can mount an OS/2 share Let it die in peace Felix. ;-) Can't, because it won't. Next release is in 3rd or 4th beta, probably due before June. On the bright side, we've just seen announcement of 3.0.24 and 3.0.25pre1 ports for OS/2 in the last week or two, so maybe the problem has become moot for those brave enough to replace the antique OS/2 LM with a Samba recent port. -- For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
Lørdag 10 marts 2007 15:07 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: type smbfs isn't supported by the kernel that's a error message that i get from when i launch this commad smbmount //10.126.12.41/xxx /mnt/xxx -o username=xxx no problem with the password ... coz im sure it is rite overall good feature of 10.2, esp its visual graphic Hi - search this list for smbfs and cifs :-) -- - Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Verner Kjærsgaard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Saturday 10 March 2007 06:07:37 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: type smbfs isn't supported by the kernel that's a error message that i get from when i launch this commad smbmount //10.126.12.41/xxx /mnt/xxx -o username=xxx no problem with the password ... coz im sure it is rite overall good feature of 10.2, esp its visual graphic I don't have 10.2 yet - and am not going at all until this is fixed - but I've read on this and other lists that SMB was somehow deleted from SUSE at that version and replaced with something inferior. Look online. -- k -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
