[NTLUG:Discuss] SAMBA Problem (I Think)

[Bryan J. Smith]

The automounter?
I _never_ put remote file mounts in fstab.
That's just asking for trouble.
Plus automounter maps are easily distributed via NIS or LDAP.

I also dislike SMB because it lacks many of the options of NFS,
lack backgrounding, hard or interruptable mounts.
While Samba servers can do such, most native SMB servers don't.
At least not as good as Microsoft Services for UNIX (SFU) can provide via NFS.

That's just been my experience.
Especially for something like "smbfs" which is less tested than the services.
Besides, "smbfs" is pretty nuch a Linux VFS-only hack.
Hence why I still use NFS.
The only time I've had issues were with the pre 2.2+Trond/SGI-patch versions.
2.2+Trond/SGI as well as 2.4/2.6 has been rather solid.
The NFS v4 and IDMap capabilites and very well done IMHO.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith (currently mobile)
b.j.smith at ieee.org

-----Original Message-----
From:  Scott Hollomon 
Date:  04-12-28 10:42
To:  NTLUG Discussion List 
Subj:  Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] SAMBA Problem (I Think)

I know you were all holding your breath for the resolution of this problem and 
I think I now have it solved.  There seems to be some conflict between 
current versions of samba and konqueror when the shares are mounted via 
fstab, when they are mounted from the command line (ie mount -t smbfs) the 
problem goes away.  This problem does not appear to exist if you mount shares 
in fstab running on a windows server or if you use an older version of samba 
server or the samba clients.  This truly sucks because I cannot figure out 
exactly which component is causing the problem.

My workaround is to mount shares via a script using mount -t smbfs that runs 
with the other startup scripts in /etc/init.d/rc5.d, I just make it the last 
script to run.  If you know a better way I'm all ears.

-- 
R. Scott Hollomon
Collin Street Bakery, Inc.
scott at collinstreet.com

_______________________________________________
https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss