Confused over CIFS
glgxg at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jan 12 17:57:49 UTC 2009
On 01/12/2009 12:53 AM, Christopher Chan wrote:
>>>> I know historically there were two implementations, and I also know
>>>> that's not true in Hardy.
>>> Basically what I explained but which you did not make clear in your posts.
>> You explained no such thing. You said "yes they are" separate
>> implementations (in Hardy).
> Heh. Did I not now? You asked the OP about the version of Ubuntu. That
> question was never answered. Nowhere was Hardy brought into the thread
> except for my post where I said:
> "Hardy kernels no longer have the smbfs module. They only have the cifs
> module. They are separate implementations.
> smbfs does not support sec= and has been DROPPED from the mainline
> kernel. It does not even enjoy deprecated status now. But it did exist
> and you will still find in 7.x I believe.
> cifs is the only module available going forward from now but nobody has
> updated documentation or made it know that smbfs ain't around anymore
> and some specific smbfs behaviour that the cifs does not support has
> already bitten a few."
> So there being no previous mention of Hardy, talk about smbfs and cifs
> modules has not been clearly limited to what is available only on Hardy.
> You said: "The mount.smbfs in Ubuntu is just a wrapper over mount.cifs."
> I, therefore, feel free to point out that smbfs and cifs are different
> modules and different implementations in previous kernels which I point
> out in the second paragraph in the quotation above because that would
> the case in versions of Ubuntu before Hardy.
> People have been burned already using smbfs syntax in Hardy so you
> cannot really call mount.smbfs a 'separate interface'. It looks more
> like a half-baked wrapper attempt at backwards compatibility.
> You can go on and try to spin this all you like. I did point out that
> Hardy only has the cifs module, that there was a smbfs module and that
> should be available in 7.x versions of Ubuntu (okay, this is not
> particularly clear but Hardy being '8.x' should have got the message
Ummm... not sure who's right or wrong in all of this, but for what it's
worth here's what I've dug up:
Yes, smbfs hasn't been maintained by samba.org:
The cifs and smbfs file systems can coexist on the same system and do
But in the case of Ubuntu:
$ man mount.smbfs
will get you:
intrepid (8) - mount.cifs.8.gz
Provided by: smbfs_3.2.3-1ubuntu3_i386
Ditto for man smbmount.
That is because, as Matthew pointed out, mount.smbfs actually uses
note: you can change /hardy/ to /intrepid/ for the intrepid man page.
which is included in the smbfs package:
smbfs: setuid-binary sbin/mount.cifs 4755 root/root
smbfs: setuid-binary sbin/umount.cifs 4755 root/root
and there appears to be no separate cifs package/module:
Of possible interest for the OP/Ted:
Note the reference in the page: " For a more thorough description,
see http://www.ubiqx.org/cifs/." That link is actually to an online book
'Implementing CIFS' & is well worth reading/reviewing.
As for using CIFS for large file transfers; CIFS is used in HPC's (High
I don't have an answer to your original question, but I often tranfer
7GB DVD files between my 8.04 system and a WinXPP machine without
issues. Maybe I've just been lucky so far.
More information about the ubuntu-users