• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Linux gurus, I need your help.

Kaervak

Kaervak

Diamond Member
If software were a physical object (aside from a CD) I would have smashed my Suse 10.1 install to pieces by now. Linux gurus of the forum, I am in need of your expertise.

I'm basically trying to map/mount my Windows 2000 shares to my Suse install. I have the following in my fstab file:

//192.168.0.102/Audio /mnt/windows smbfs noauto,users,rw,exec 0 0
//192.168.0.102/Video /mnt/windows smbfs noauto,users,rw,exec 0 0

The Samba service is running, firewall port open. The user/pass of the windows system I'm connecting to are in under the yast Local Network Browsing Samba tab. I can ping the windows system just fine from the linux system. The "drives" show up on the desktop as remote shares. However I cannot mount them. Whenever I try I get SMB Connection Failed. I've done chmod u+s;/usr/bin/smbmount & chmod u+s;/usr/bin/smbumount and still nothing. Now, where it gets weird, they mount fine in root. No SMB errors at all, exact same lines in fstab. I'm at a loss, I have no idea what to do. Any and all help appreciated.
 
get off the cart and make sure the horse gets hooked up...


take out the fstab entries, and try manual mounts. "mount -t smbfs -o username=user //server/share /mnt/point

also, you are mounting both locations to the same place, that isn't going to work. mkdir /mnt/windows/audio and mkdir /mnt/windows/video and modify mount statements.
 
The Samba service is running, firewall port open
Click to expand...

The Samba server is irrelevant, that's for the server portion of Samba. And which port? Since you're connecting to Win2K you need 445.

The user/pass of the windows system I'm connecting to are in under the yast Local Network Browsing Samba tab.
Click to expand...

I believe that only matters for the GUI browsing in Konqurer but I'm not 100% sure.

Now, where it gets weird, they mount fine in root. No SMB errors at all, exact same lines in fstab.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to mount them as a regular user you need to own the target mount points, even if the smbmount binary is setuid root.

also, you are mounting both locations to the same place, that isn't going to work. mkdir /mnt/windows/audio and mkdir /mnt/windows/video and modify mount statements.
Click to expand...

Well technically it'll work, but only the second mount will show up. =)
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
If you're trying to mount them as a regular user you need to own the target mount points, even if the smbmount binary is setuid root.
Click to expand...

How do I do that? I'm pretty new to Linux so I'm learning as I go.


edit:

Tried the chmod/chown stuff and now after I try to mount the network shares an error box pops up with no text only a red circle with an X through it. Apparently I've broken the sh!t out of something.
 
look....get a root terminal, and then mount the shares by hand to eliminate samba permissions (on the other end) and network problems. Then work toward a manual, command line mount that allows your normal users the access you need (ro, rw, etc) THEN move to putting it into fstab, you are getting the cart before the horse here.
 
I've tried the manual mount and nothing happens. I'm going through a root shell too. I really think I screwed something up while trying to ge this working.
 
You're running smbmount //server/share ./mountpoint/ -o username=blah, right? If so change it to smbmount //server/share ./mountpoint/ -o debug=4,username=blah and see what the debug output says.
 
Ok, doing smbmount //server/share ./mountpoint/ -o debug=4,username=blah with my actual info returns:

-bash: /usr/bin/smbmount: Permission Denied.

I did do chmod 600 to smbmount, but then tried the u+s again. I take it I've really broken something right?

Forgot to mention, this is through a root shell under my user (non root) account. And it does the same thing when I try it logged in as root.

I think I figured out what I screwed up. Whtn I looked at the actual smbmount file while in root. It has a little padlock on it and under the permissions tab, Owner,Group & Others are listed as Forbidden. I clicked on the Advanced Permissions button and redid the permissions to give access to everyone. Hopefully that fixed it.
 
I did do chmod 600 to smbmount, but then tried the u+s again. I take it I've really broken something right?
Click to expand...

600 means that only the owner of the file can read and write to it, no execute. Really you shouldn't be messing with permissions on executables at all, I guarantee that wasn't your problem in the beginning.
 
Type smb://192.168.0.102 in the address bar and see if you can connect to the box at all. If you can't then you need to reconfigure a few things on the win2k box.
 
It was something I screwed up. After resetting the permissions on the smbmount file, manual mounting works fine under my user account. For automatic mounting adding the exact same manual string to fstab should mount them without a problem for non root correct?
 
For automatic mounting adding the exact same manual string to fstab should mount them without a problem for non root correct?
Click to expand...

I've never done that and actually I'm not sure that smbfs works proprely via fstab, you might be able to get away with telling it what user to give the mount to since the mount will be performed by root on bootup but I can't say for sure. You should probably look at the CIFS stuff, it's the successor to SMBFS and should be better supported.
 
I'll look into CIFS. For now, I can live with manual mounting. I got all my audio & video on my windows server fully available to me on my linux laptop. Way cool. 😀

Much much thanks for the help & suggestions everyone. 🙂
 
Is it necessary to mount the filesystem in the first place?

GNOME and KDE both have virtual file system components that are designed to make it easy for non-privileged users to access SMB/CIFS shares without any need to mess around with /etc/fstab. I don't have any entries in my fstab for SMB shares any more - I just connected once through the GNOME "Connect to..." dialog and now I see the shares on my desktop. The only reason to use old-style mounts is if you have a program using those files that requires a full Unix pathname to work (like Easytag, for example).
 
GNOME and KDE both have virtual file system components that are designed to make it easy for non-privileged users to access SMB/CIFS shares without any need to mess around with /etc/fstab. I don't have any entries in my fstab for SMB shares any more - I just connected once through the GNOME "Connect to..." dialog and now I see the shares on my desktop. The only reason to use old-style mounts is if you have a program using those files that requires a full Unix pathname to work (like Easytag, for example).
Click to expand...

At least with Nautilus, that method performs a lot worse though.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
At least with Nautilus, that method performs a lot worse though.
Click to expand...
Could be - I've never tested it. But it works well enough for my A/V needs. If I were truly concerned about speed, I wouldn't be using SMB anyway.

 
Could be - I've never tested it. But it works well enough for my A/V needs. If I were truly concerned about speed, I wouldn't be using SMB anyway.
Click to expand...

SMB/CIFS aren't that bad speedwise, but somehow the Nautilus devs found a way to make their gnome-vfs implementation run at around half speed. I don't have any real numbers right now, but from what I remember the gnome-vfs stuff was half to one-third as fast as a SMBFS or CIFS mount.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I don't have any real numbers right now, but from what I remember the gnome-vfs stuff was half to one-third as fast as a SMBFS or CIFS mount.
Click to expand...
You piqued my interest. On my totally untuned network (cheap cards, no service tweaking) and using wholly unscientific procedures (stopwatch, no attempt to control other processes), I got the following results...

Nautilus VFS share: 150MB, 33 sec = 4.5 MB/sec
smbmount folder: 150MB, 45 sec = 3.3 MB/sec

Given my schlocky test procedure, I wouldn't go so far as to proclaim Gnome-VFS a winner, but I certainly don't see a two- to three-fold performance difference. This is GNOME 2.14 in Debian Sid.

 
I could've swore it was more of a difference than that, I'll have to try again later. Did you see the CPU difference too though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top