Bugzilla – Bug 132461
Can't add smb/cifs source as new installation source
Last modified: 2010-11-09 21:27:10 UTC
I have set up a samba export from my files server, gilles-bureau. On my target PC, gilles-portable, I wanted to add this samba share as a new installation source. Previously, I have checked that I could access to smb://gilles-bureau/pub/Linux/Samba on this target PC, whithout authentication. I filled the form as the following : server name : gilles-bureau share : pub Directory name : Linux/Samba I have the following error message : Impossible to create installation source from URL : 'smb://gilles-bureau/pub/Linux/Samba'. Details : ERROR(Media:mountfailed) Retry ? See the yast2 log in the following attachment.
Created attachment 56546 [details] Samba installation source testcase
> 2005-11-05 09:28:12 <1> linux(6718) [mediaaccess++] Mount.cc(mount):100 stdout: No ip address specified and hostname not found Are you sure that the hostname `gilles-bureau' can be resolved, i.e. was it added to your /etc/hosts? Please check that first. Looks to me more like a setup-problem than a bug. NFS-shares are working fine with YaST.
The hostname 'gilles-bureau' can be resolved only by a broadcast method, and I told you that I had checked that I could access to smb://gilles-bureau/pub/Linux/Samba with konqueror. # nmblookup gilles-bureau querying gilles-bureau on 192.168.0.255 192.168.0.100 gilles-bureau<00> Don't forget there are 4 methods to resolve samba names : lmhost, wins, host, broadcast. using : "mount -t cifs" prevents at least to use the broadcast method. Hence, adding manually the hostname 'gilles-bureau' to /etc/hosts can be a workaround. BUT, I DO NOT want to manage fixed IP in my local network, since every host use a dhcp method to get its own ip address. There could be an ip conflict address or a mismatch between dhcp and /etc/host after dhcp lease time (24 hours). I consider this solution only as a short term workaround. In my case, using "mount -t smbfs" works. I guess cifs is a simpler protocol than smb with no use of the netbios system. Since there are differences in the behaviour, why wouldn't be SMB element separated from CIFS element in the drop-down list ? CIFS choice would lead to a "mount -t cifs" command and SMB choice would lead to a "mount -t smbfs" command.
Jiri: I hope this information is sufficient. Reassigning it to you.
Michael, I can add different source types SMB vs. CIFS on the YCP level, no problem. Do you find it possible to have the backend adapted for 10.1? I'm just a bit curious how to explain the difference to users...
Have a look at this document : http://www.codefx.com/CIFS_Explained.pdf I quote the author, page 9 : " Future Changes: Many vendors are currently looking to completely phase out NetBIOS and simply run CIFS directly over TCP and UDP. The draft specifications of CIFS1.0 explicitly states that CIFS does not depend on any specific transport protocol and has a brief appendix which indicates how CIFS would run natively over TCP. NetBIOS still exists mainly for backwards compatibility. If NetBIOS is removed, the changes will not be very drastic. DNS and domain names will replace the NetBIOS naming service. All packets that required the session service would run directly over TCP, and there would be no NetBIOS pre-pended header. All packets that required the datagram service would run directly over UDP, and again, the pre-pended header would become unnecessary. It is unknown if these changes will actually be made by vendors. Microsoft appears to be very interested in providing CIFS without NetBIOS. If Microsoft does eventually release an OS with CIFS decoupled from NetBIOS, other vendors are likely to make the switch also. " Do you agree that we have to deal with this CIFS implementation ?
Yes, I do. But I need to know whether Michael finds it possible to have it implemented in the backend for 10.1.
See Bug #104358. First everybody requested to drop smb, and use cifs instead. Now you want me to revert it. Until #104358 the packagemanager distinguished between them, but because e.g. linuxrc uses cifs (because there's not smb available in instsys) but sends smb:// URLs, I was asked to drop smb completely. Klaus: What are we going to support?
-> Lars ?
See http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html Therefore the protocol is smb:// but the fs type used by the mount command is cifs. 5 years later and I believe this issue no longer exists.