FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-10-2009, 07:08 PM
"Ted Hilts - Thunderbird Acct."
 
Default Confused over CIFS

I did the following on the Ubuntu machine called "Ubuntu" using my
username and password:
sudo smbmount //misty/D /Mted-misty -o username=xxx,password=xxxxx
The machine called "misty" is a XP Home machine with NTFS formatting..
On the Ubuntu machine I then tried "sudo smbumount /Mted-misty" to be
sure it worked then I applied the above smbmount again.
Then I did a data transfer operation:
sudo cp -Rv /Mted-misty/misty-scrapbook-Nov* /media/sdg1/
The command executed and blazed away for a long time as there was a lot
of data -- and I mean a lot!!!
Part way through it got very slow -- and I mean very slow!!!
So I decided to <CTL C> , then I tried under another session using the
command "sudo smbumount /Mted-misty" and checked the mount state which
showed /Mted-misty as still mounted but as a CIFS mount. New to me so I
checked the man facility which told to use "umount.cifs" which did not
work. The machine "misty" has NTFS formatted files and I was trying to
move data to "misty" from a Ubuntu system disk "/media/sdg1" which was
also a formatted NTFS file. Also, I noted that the "misty" machine was
hung. I ended up restarting the Ubuntu machine called "Ubuntua" as well
as the XP Home machine called "misty". The CIFS protocal automatically
engaged was not expected so I researched it.

How should I do this data transfer? Should I have expected it would
automatically engage and what commands should I have used?

Thanks -- Ted





--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-11-2009, 01:23 AM
Matthew Flaschen
 
Default Confused over CIFS

Ted Hilts - Thunderbird Acct. wrote:
> I did the following on the Ubuntu machine called "Ubuntu"

What version of Ubuntu?

> Part way through it got very slow -- and I mean very slow!!!

SMB is not really designed to transfer huge amounts of data. It's
better to use rsync for that (there are Windows rsync servers), as
you'll get better compression.

> So I decided to <CTL C> , then I tried under another session using the
> command "sudo smbumount /Mted-misty"

Cancelling the copy should not have removed your mount. It was a
mistake to remount, especially on the same mount point (/Mted-misty).

> and checked the mount state which showed /Mted-misty as still mounted but as a CIFS mount.

This is a little bit confusing. SMB and CIFS are basically the same
thing, but there are multiple filesystem drivers designed to let you
mount them. On Hardy at least, smbmount is a symbolic link to
/sbin/mount.smbfs , but nonetheless resulted in a cifs mount when I tested.

New to me so I
> checked the man facility which told to use "umount.cifs" which did not
> work.

You usually need to give the arguments when talking about a command.
Otherwise, it's really impossible to know what you did. I did a test mount:

smbmount //***.***.***.***/USER /home/matthew/test/smb_mount -o
user=****,pass=****

(the stars are private data)

It worked (albeit quite slowly). I then successfully unmounted with:

umount.cifs /home/matthew/test/smb_mount

> The CIFS protocal automatically engaged was not expected so I researched it.

I don't see any automatic engagement here. You told it to mount, so it
did (which obviously requires communicating using CIFS)

> How should I do this data transfer?

Again, use rsync for large transfers.

Matt Flaschen

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-11-2009, 03:08 AM
Preston Kutzner
 
Default Confused over CIFS

On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:23 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:


Part way through it got very slow -- and I mean very slow!!!


SMB is not really designed to transfer huge amounts of data. It's
better to use rsync for that (there are Windows rsync servers), as
you'll get better compression.


Just out of curiosity, what is your reasoning that SMB is not designed
for transferring huge amounts of data? SMB/CIFS is the file sharing
protocol Microsoft uses in its Windows operating system. It is
designed, in a sense, as Microsoft's alternative to NFS. If it wasn't
meant for large transfers of data, it wouldn't be the primary protocol
for file-sharing in Microsoft solutions.





So I decided to <CTL C> , then I tried under another session using
the

command "sudo smbumount /Mted-misty"


Cancelling the copy should not have removed your mount. It was a
mistake to remount, especially on the same mount point (/Mted-misty).

and checked the mount state which showed /Mted-misty as still
mounted but as a CIFS mount.


This is a little bit confusing. SMB and CIFS are basically the same
thing, but there are multiple filesystem drivers designed to let you
mount them. On Hardy at least, smbmount is a symbolic link to
/sbin/mount.smbfs , but nonetheless resulted in a cifs mount when I
tested.


New to me so I
checked the man facility which told to use "umount.cifs" which did
not

work.


You usually need to give the arguments when talking about a command.
Otherwise, it's really impossible to know what you did. I did a
test mount:


smbmount //***.***.***.***/USER /home/matthew/test/smb_mount -o
user=****,pass=****

(the stars are private data)

It worked (albeit quite slowly). I then successfully unmounted with:

umount.cifs /home/matthew/test/smb_mount


You really should make sure you have at least samba-client and smbfs
installed. Then, use the following command to mount your share from
your Windows XP box:


sudo mount -t cifs //<windows_machine>/<share> /<mount>/<point> -o
username=*****,password=*****


You can add "uid=<your_uid>,gid=<your_gid>" to the end of that to make
sure the files are mounted with the ownership permissions set to you.
When you want to unmount, just do:


sudo umount /<mount>/<point>




The CIFS protocal automatically engaged was not expected so I
researched it.


I don't see any automatic engagement here. You told it to mount, so
it

did (which obviously requires communicating using CIFS)


How should I do this data transfer?


Again, use rsync for large transfers.


You can either try to find a Windows rsync "server" application, or
use the above commands as I've suggested. You shouldn't need to use
smbmount or smbumount anymore, just mount umount with the -t cifs
switch.
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-11-2009, 06:02 AM
Matthew Flaschen
 
Default Confused over CIFS

Preston Kutzner wrote:

> If it wasn't meant for large transfers of data, it wouldn't be the primary protocol
> for file-sharing in Microsoft solutions.

I think you're oversimplifying things. Even Microsoft recognizes the
need for using differential compression
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb540031(VS.85).aspx), one of
the main technologies rsync uses.

> You really should make sure you have at least samba-client and smbfs
> installed. Then, use the following command to mount your share from
> your Windows XP box:

I (and the OP) obviously have smbfs installed, as smbmount is part of
that package. umount.cifs

> sudo mount -t cifs //<windows_machine>/<share> /<mount>/<point> -o
> username=*****,password=*****

It appears smbmount/mount.smbfs is actually just a thin wrapper around
mount.cifs. Can you give a reason to use one over the other?

> When you want to unmount, just do:
>
> sudo umount /<mount>/<point>

This is a wrapper around umount.cifs.

> You can either try to find a Windows rsync "server" application,

As I already said, there are several, including cwrsync which is
actively maintained.

Matt Flaschen

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-12-2009, 01:01 AM
Derek Broughton
 
Default Confused over CIFS

Preston Kutzner wrote:

> On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:23 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>
>>> Part way through it got very slow -- and I mean very slow!!!
>>
>> SMB is not really designed to transfer huge amounts of data. It's
>> better to use rsync for that (there are Windows rsync servers), as
>> you'll get better compression.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is your reasoning that SMB is not designed
> for transferring huge amounts of data? SMB/CIFS is the file sharing
> protocol Microsoft uses in its Windows operating system. It is
> designed, in a sense, as Microsoft's alternative to NFS. If it wasn't
> meant for large transfers of data, it wouldn't be the primary protocol
> for file-sharing in Microsoft solutions.

I really don't see how that follows. It is basically nothing more than
patches on patches since the original LAN Manager of the 80s, and it's
entirely possible (though I'm not in a position to say with authority) that
it _isn't_ reliable for large data transfers. What I can say for certain is
that large data transfers overs SMB seem to stall with regularity when I
try.

> sudo mount -t cifs //<windows_machine>/<share> /<mount>/<point> -o
> username=*****,password=*****
>
Or better use "credentials=/path/to/file" to give username/password for
repeatable mounts.



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-12-2009, 01:03 AM
Derek Broughton
 
Default Confused over CIFS

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Preston Kutzner wrote:

>> sudo mount -t cifs //<windows_machine>/<share> /<mount>/<point> -o
>> username=*****,password=*****
>
> It appears smbmount/mount.smbfs is actually just a thin wrapper around
> mount.cifs. Can you give a reason to use one over the other?
>
Sure. Why on earth would you learn _two_ sets of mount/umount commands when
one will do the job?

Nobody is really expected to use the mount.XXX commands - they're just the
internal way that the mount commands are implemented for various filesystems.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-12-2009, 01:16 AM
Preston Kutzner
 
Default Confused over CIFS

On Jan 11, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:


It appears smbmount/mount.smbfs is actually just a thin wrapper around
mount.cifs. Can you give a reason to use one over the other?


This, in particular. SMBFS is deprecated and unsupported by the Samba
team. CIFS is now the way to go.

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1920





When you want to unmount, just do:

sudo umount /<mount>/<point>


This is a wrapper around umount.cifs.


Right, but mount / umount is a more consistent way of mounting shares,
even remote shares. Yes, it's a "wrapper" for other mount commands,
but only one command needs to be remembered. Regardless, smbmount and
smbumount are there for backward compatibility at this point and
should be avoided in favor of cifs. If you wish to use a specific
mount command, use mount.cifs.




You can either try to find a Windows rsync "server" application,


As I already said, there are several, including cwrsync which is
actively maintained.

Matt Flaschen

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-12-2009, 02:23 AM
Matthew Flaschen
 
Default Confused over CIFS

Preston Kutzner wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>
>> It appears smbmount/mount.smbfs is actually just a thin wrapper around
>> mount.cifs. Can you give a reason to use one over the other?
>
> This, in particular. SMBFS is deprecated and unsupported by the Samba
> team.

The mount.smbfs in Ubuntu is just a wrapper over mount.cifs. They are
not separate implementations, just separate interfaces.

Matt Flaschen

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-12-2009, 02:33 AM
Christopher Chan
 
Default Confused over CIFS

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Preston Kutzner wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>> It appears smbmount/mount.smbfs is actually just a thin wrapper around
>>> mount.cifs. Can you give a reason to use one over the other?
>> This, in particular. SMBFS is deprecated and unsupported by the Samba
>> team.
>
> The mount.smbfs in Ubuntu is just a wrapper over mount.cifs. They are
> not separate implementations, just separate interfaces.
>

Oh yes they are.

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.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 01-12-2009, 03:15 AM
Matthew Flaschen
 
Default Confused over CIFS

Christopher Chan wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Preston Kutzner wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2009, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>>>> It appears smbmount/mount.smbfs is actually just a thin wrapper around
>>>> mount.cifs. Can you give a reason to use one over the other?
>>> This, in particular. SMBFS is deprecated and unsupported by the Samba
>>> team.
>> The mount.smbfs in Ubuntu is just a wrapper over mount.cifs. They are
>> not separate implementations, just separate interfaces.
>>
>
> Oh yes they are.

I don't think you're listening. If you look at the /sbin/mount.smbfs
/in Ubuntu/ (8.04 to be specific), it is a wrapper around mount.cifs.

It ends:

exec /sbin/mount.cifs "${args[@]}"

I know historically there were two implementations, and I also know
that's not true in Hardy.

Matt Flaschen

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org