Re: SMBMOUNT gives errors... (sorry for double posting: stupid error:send in HTML)
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, fam. Willemen wrote: > I can access my smb-share (on a remote machine) through " smbclient > '\\HOSTNAME\SHARENAME' ", but when doing " smbmount > '\\HOSTNAME\SHARENAME' -c 'mount /home/samba/dir' " it gives a "mount error: > No such device". > > Anybody got a clue?! Try giving the IP address (with the -I option). This often helps. Tom == Quote of the day for November 28th, 2000 You may have a fresh start at any moment you choose, for this thing we call failure is not the falling down, but the staying down. - Mary Pickford ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: smbmount
%-> Can anyone tell me what's wrong with the following command? %-> %-> # smbmount //peacedog/c /mnt/stephen -d 777 %-> %-> This command results in the following error message: Try it like this: mount -t smbfs -o username=,password= //peacedog/c /mnt/stephen etc. -- Juha ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: smbmount problem(selim)
--On 09/28/00 05:57:46 PM -0500 Jeff Hogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:49 AM > Subject: Re: smbmount problem(selim) > > >> If memory serves, user/password syntax is wrong. Check the manpage >> since I'm going from memory, but I believe the command should be: >> >> smbmount //w2kp/shared_dir /mnt -o -U selim%selim >> >> The -o flags everything past it as options to the smbmount command, >> and -U identifies selim%selim as user/password. I remember having a >> similar problem, and I think that's the syntax that worked -- but >> check the manpage anyway because my memory is frequently write-only. >> > Just a quick question for you, is this samba 2.0.7? If not, you will > have problems connecting to win2000. > > Jeff Hogg > And my memory was wrong too!! The correct syntax is: smbmount //w2kp/shared_dir /mnt -o username=selim%selim Rob _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ /\_\_\_\_\/\_\ /\_\_\_\_\_\ /\/_/_/_/_/ /\/_/ \/_/_/_/_/_/ QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT, /\/_/__\/_/ __/\/_//\/_/ PROFUNDUM VIDITUR /\/_/_/_/_/ /\_\ /\/_//\/_/ /\/_/ \/_/ /\/_/_/\/_//\/_/ (Whatever is said in Latin \/_/ \/_/ \/_/_/_/_/ \/_/ appears profound) Rob Tanner McMinnville, Oregon [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: smbmount problem(selim)
-Original Message- From: Rob Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 9:49 AM Subject: Re: smbmount problem(selim) >If memory serves, user/password syntax is wrong. Check the manpage >since I'm going from memory, but I believe the command should be: > >smbmount //w2kp/shared_dir /mnt -o -U selim%selim > >The -o flags everything past it as options to the smbmount command, and >-U identifies selim%selim as user/password. I remember having a >similar problem, and I think that's the syntax that worked -- but check >the manpage anyway because my memory is frequently write-only. > Just a quick question for you, is this samba 2.0.7? If not, you will have problems connecting to win2000. Jeff Hogg ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: smbmount problem(selim)
If memory serves, user/password syntax is wrong. Check the manpage since I'm going from memory, but I believe the command should be: smbmount //w2kp/shared_dir /mnt -o -U selim%selim The -o flags everything past it as options to the smbmount command, and -U identifies selim%selim as user/password. I remember having a similar problem, and I think that's the syntax that worked -- but check the manpage anyway because my memory is frequently write-only. -- Rob --On 09/28/00 04:03:10 PM +0600 Selim Jahangir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All > I am in a problem with Samba. Whem i am going to mount a shared > directory in win2k prof from linux box I am getting the following > problem. > > I used the command > smbmount " //w2kp/shared_dir /mnt selim%selim" here w2kp is win 2k > PC , /mnt is mount point in Linux ans selim%selim is the user and > passd. > > The problem i see is > session setup failed > ERRDOS-ERRnoaccess (Access Denied) > SMB connection failed. > > But i can mount from win98 pc , no problem. I gave full control of the > shared dir from win 2k Prof pc. > > Help solicited from all redhat people. > > Thanks > selim > > > > ___ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ /\_\_\_\_\/\_\ /\_\_\_\_\_\ /\/_/_/_/_/ /\/_/ \/_/_/_/_/_/ QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT, /\/_/__\/_/ __/\/_//\/_/ PROFUNDUM VIDITUR /\/_/_/_/_/ /\_\ /\/_//\/_/ /\/_/ \/_/ /\/_/_/\/_//\/_/ (Whatever is said in Latin \/_/ \/_/ \/_/_/_/_/ \/_/ appears profound) Rob Tanner McMinnville, Oregon [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: smbmount problem(selim)
smb.conf encrypted passwd = yes d o u think it sould be no Reply pl. Thanks selim - Original Message - From: "David Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:16 PM Subject: RE: smbmount problem(selim) > Have you allowed plain text passwords for the smb redirector on your 'doze > box? > > -- > David Rhodes > IT Systems Administrator > The views expressed in this message are those of the author > and not those of Oxford Molecular. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Selim Jahangir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 28 September 2000 11:03 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: smbmount problem(selim) > > > > > > Dear All > > I am in a problem with Samba. Whem i am going to mount a > > shared directory in > > win2k prof from linux box I am getting the following problem. > > > > I used the command > > smbmount " file://w2kp/shared_dir /mnt selim%selim" here w2kp is > > win 2k PC , > > /mnt is mount point in Linux ans selim%selim is the user and passd. > > > > The problem i see is > > session setup failed > > ERRDOS-ERRnoaccess (Access Denied) > > SMB connection failed. > > > > But i can mount from win98 pc , no problem. I gave full control of the > > shared dir from win 2k Prof pc. > > > > Help solicited from all redhat people. > > > > Thanks > > selim > > > > > > > > ___ > > Redhat-list mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > > > > > > ___ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
RE: smbmount problem(selim)
Have you allowed plain text passwords for the smb redirector on your 'doze box? -- David Rhodes IT Systems Administrator The views expressed in this message are those of the author and not those of Oxford Molecular. > -Original Message- > From: Selim Jahangir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 28 September 2000 11:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: smbmount problem(selim) > > > Dear All > I am in a problem with Samba. Whem i am going to mount a > shared directory in > win2k prof from linux box I am getting the following problem. > > I used the command > smbmount " //w2kp/shared_dir /mnt selim%selim" here w2kp is > win 2k PC , > /mnt is mount point in Linux ans selim%selim is the user and passd. > > The problem i see is > session setup failed > ERRDOS-ERRnoaccess (Access Denied) > SMB connection failed. > > But i can mount from win98 pc , no problem. I gave full control of the > shared dir from win 2k Prof pc. > > Help solicited from all redhat people. > > Thanks > selim > > > > ___ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > ___ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Re: smbmount vs NFS opinions
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Frank Carreiro wrote: > My guess would be he isn't happy with NFS because it can be used to > comprimise a system. Of course I would have to say "Don't export your > home directory" ::grinz:: Well, I have never were impressed with NFS security at all these days with all those script kiddies online I am more paranoid than ever. To top it up, NFS implementations on linux were AWEFUL (to say the least). I understand that they have improved a lot in the past couple of years, but my initial impression was that NFS on linux was unstable and slow as... :-( With recent NFS improvements, hope I'm wrong on both accounts. Hossein -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: smbmount vs NFS opinions
My guess would be he isn't happy with NFS because it can be used to comprimise a system. Of course I would have to say "Don't export your home directory" ::grinz:: I believe NFS would be the better choice. I can't imagine SMB being all that fast or secure. It's NetBios encapsulated in IP if I remember right. More overhead can't be faster :D Just my two cents Frank > > >On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Robert Burton wrote: > > > >> I have a Snap Server 4000 (rack mount) that I need to backup. I can > >> connect to the Snap via smbmount (which I've already done) and by > NFS. > >> But I haven't used NFS before. Is using one better then the other? > Any > >> opinions on which would be better to connect with to do the backups? > The > >> backups by the way are going to a Seagate Scorpion96 tape drive I > have > >> hooked up the a Linux box, I still need to get it to work with BRU > though. > > > >I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of > >files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer? > > > > Hossein, > > As someone else mentioned, Samba can help you with the file and > directory > permissions. I'm actually not to worried about that. The files are used > in a primarily Windows95/98 environment so those permissions are not a > big worry. > > Can you explain why you're not a fan of NFS? I guess I should explain > more of what I'm looking for. Things like what keeps a connection better > > (if that's even an issue). Speed of file transfers. How much burden is > each protocol on the server. Things like that. > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > -Bob Burton > IT Consultant > Literati Information Technology, LLC -- This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows NT reboot. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: smbmount vs NFS opinions
>At 14:39 4/04/00, you wrote: >>On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jason Bradley Nance wrote: >> >> > > I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of >> > > files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer? >> > >> > No. You can configure Samba to preserve file permissions, etc. >> >>Could you elaborate on that? >> >>Samba (being a clone of MS Networking) has no concept of user-group-other >>permissions. Sure you can set it to enforce a certain set of permissions, >>but it is far from what is available in Unix. >> >>Also don't forget that the origianl post was with regards to making >>backups using either samba or NFS. For example, what would permissions of >>"/tmp" be after you backup and restore via samba? >> >>Hossein > >An easy way around this. > >Backup using tar to a samba share directory, then just backup the tar file. > >All perms will be restored with the tar file (Assuming you use cvpf option) > >It works like a treat. (For me anyway) > Luckily for me I am backing up a Snap Server, so there's just user files on it and permissions are not a worry at all. The Snap allows you to set some security, but not to the extent that a Linux system can. So that takes me bac to my original question, which is better SMB or NFS? Does one have more hassle over the other to setup correctly? (I already have smbmount on,compiled and it works). Is one faster then the other? Etc.. Thanks. -Bob Burton IT Consultant Literati Information Technology, LLC -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: smbmount vs NFS opinions
>On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Robert Burton wrote: > >> I have a Snap Server 4000 (rack mount) that I need to backup. I can >> connect to the Snap via smbmount (which I've already done) and by NFS. >> But I haven't used NFS before. Is using one better then the other? Any >> opinions on which would be better to connect with to do the backups? The >> backups by the way are going to a Seagate Scorpion96 tape drive I have >> hooked up the a Linux box, I still need to get it to work with BRU though. > >I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of >files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer? > Hossein, As someone else mentioned, Samba can help you with the file and directory permissions. I'm actually not to worried about that. The files are used in a primarily Windows95/98 environment so those permissions are not a big worry. Can you explain why you're not a fan of NFS? I guess I should explain more of what I'm looking for. Things like what keeps a connection better (if that's even an issue). Speed of file transfers. How much burden is each protocol on the server. Things like that. Thanks in advance for any help. -Bob Burton IT Consultant Literati Information Technology, LLC --- It's all in the palm of your hand, 3Com PalmPilot,http://www.3com.com/palm --- Robert Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: smbmount vs NFS opinions
At 14:39 4/04/00, you wrote: >On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jason Bradley Nance wrote: > > > > I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of > > > files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer? > > > > No. You can configure Samba to preserve file permissions, etc. > >Could you elaborate on that? > >Samba (being a clone of MS Networking) has no concept of user-group-other >permissions. Sure you can set it to enforce a certain set of permissions, >but it is far from what is available in Unix. > >Also don't forget that the origianl post was with regards to making >backups using either samba or NFS. For example, what would permissions of >"/tmp" be after you backup and restore via samba? > >Hossein An easy way around this. Backup using tar to a samba share directory, then just backup the tar file. All perms will be restored with the tar file (Assuming you use cvpf option) It works like a treat. (For me anyway) Darryl -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: smbmount vs NFS opinions
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jason Bradley Nance wrote: > > I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of > > files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer? > > No. You can configure Samba to preserve file permissions, etc. Could you elaborate on that? Samba (being a clone of MS Networking) has no concept of user-group-other permissions. Sure you can set it to enforce a certain set of permissions, but it is far from what is available in Unix. Also don't forget that the origianl post was with regards to making backups using either samba or NFS. For example, what would permissions of "/tmp" be after you backup and restore via samba? Hossein -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
RE: smbmount vs NFS opinions
> I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of > files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer? No. You can configure Samba to preserve file permissions, etc. -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: smbmount vs NFS opinions
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Robert Burton wrote: > I have a Snap Server 4000 (rack mount) that I need to backup. I can > connect to the Snap via smbmount (which I've already done) and by NFS. > But I haven't used NFS before. Is using one better then the other? Any > opinions on which would be better to connect with to do the backups? The > backups by the way are going to a Seagate Scorpion96 tape drive I have > hooked up the a Linux box, I still need to get it to work with BRU though. I am not a fan of NFS, but don't you lose ALL security permissions of files and directories if you use smbmount to backup your computer? Hossein -- To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
Re: smbmount 2.0.1-4 and kernel-2.1.105 compatibility
I have this problem also (although I'm running 106). I haven't found sources for a newer smbmount, but have contacted people re: it. Chris <- Visit Me At http://home.hiwaay.net/~jfrost -> <-- For My Public PGP Key Visit http://home.hiwaay.net/~jfrost/pgp_key.txt --> -- PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES! http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
