smbfs/smbmount available for Solaris or other non-Linux Unix?

smbfs/smbmount available for Solaris or other non-Linux Unix?

Post by Robert Richar » Tue, 08 Oct 1996 04:00:00



Has smbfs (& smbmount) been ported to:
        Solaris (for SPARC)
or any other Unix platforms besides Linux?

Thanks.

        Robert Richards
        Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
        Stanford University

 
 
 

smbfs/smbmount available for Solaris or other non-Linux Unix?

Post by wayne rober » Wed, 09 Oct 1996 04:00:00



>Has smbfs (& smbmount) been ported to:
>    Solaris (for SPARC)
>or any other Unix platforms besides Linux?

No, but linux has been ported to sparc :)

there is even a sparclinux distribution, redhat-4.0
I think you can run the sunos binaries too.

the sparclinux page is http://www.geog.ucb.ca/sparclinux.html
--
this is a test signature

 
 
 

smbfs/smbmount available for Solaris or other non-Linux Unix?

Post by Cary B. O'Bri » Fri, 11 Oct 1996 04:00:00




>Has smbfs (& smbmount) been ported to:
>    Solaris (for SPARC)
>or any other Unix platforms besides Linux?

>Thanks.

>    Robert Richards
>    Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
>    Stanford University

I was thinking about this.  We have HP-UX machines, and
I doubt that the sys admin people would let me add
new file system support to a machine that many people
use to make money.  So we cant se WIN95/NT drives from
unix -- or can we?

One solution is to have an intermediate Linux box --
smbmount the shares and re-export them using NFS.
This should work, since I ran this backwords last
night (linux nfs mounts a cdrom on another linux
machine, and re-exports it as a smb share to a
win95 box).

Well, after 9 months of trying I cant convince the
powers that be to add just one little linux box.  ("Just
a *y tiny one.  Please..." -- "no, you'll spend
too much time adminstering it..." ).

Ok. Another idea.  I know there are several user-mode
nfs implementations.  One in cryptfs (spelling?), and
someone else has one as some sort of GNU Guile project.
I also saw a smb library in the samba archive site.

So, how about a user-mode program (i.e. not in the kernel)
that is on one side an NFS server, and on the other
a SMB client.  Run one on one of the big unix servers
and connect to all the little pc drives.  You could
even fiddle the file system so you made one
nfs mount and inside it looked like

..../win95/production/fred/share_c/....
.../nt/development/wilma/share_d

I.e. in one big tree.

Am I insane?

Thanks,

-- cary

 
 
 

smbfs/smbmount available for Solaris or other non-Linux Unix?

Post by root » Sat, 12 Oct 1996 04:00:00


Quote:> smbmount the shares and re-export them using NFS.

No, won't work.

--
MVH /
Svante S?rmark

 /----------------------------------------------\     _
 |N?t&Teknik           |  Tel:   031 - 772 83 36 |   / / ()            
 |GD DataCenter        |  Fax:   031 - 772 83 90 |  / /_ |||\||||_||\\//
 |G?teborgs Datacentral|  Nalle: 0707 - 53 83 36 | /____|||||\| \_/ //\\
 |Gibraltargatan 25    |                         |              

a        
 \----------------------------------------------/    GNU Generation!

 
 
 

smbfs/smbmount available for Solaris or other non-Linux Unix?

Post by P?l-Kristian Engsta » Mon, 14 Oct 1996 04:00:00



> One solution is to have an intermediate Linux box --
> smbmount the shares and re-export them using NFS.
> This should work, since I ran this backwords last
> night (linux nfs mounts a cdrom on another linux
> machine, and re-exports it as a smb share to a
> win95 box).

This is indeed done on many sites at great success. Even
if ksmbfs is very alpha, it works well in such a
configuration.

Quote:> Well, after 9 months of trying I cant convince the
> powers that be to add just one little linux box.  ("Just
> a *y tiny one.  Please..." -- "no, you'll spend
> too much time adminstering it..." ).

This is plain silly. Having one Linux box in your network
greatly enhances the total network capabilities. The main
reason is that you will be able to run a complete
automated backup of all Win95, OS/2, Win3.11 machines on
your site on your main Unix server via the "tiny little"
Linux box.

Actually, you should probably spend two Linux boxes on
your subnet, one acting as a SMB bridge, another as a
cost effective firewall.

Quote:> Am I insane?

Certainly not.

PKE.
--
P?l-Kristian Engstad, Funcom Oslo AS, http://www.veryComputer.com/~engstad