Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:07:02 +1000 From: Antony Mawer <fbsd-current@mawer.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Moving from smbfs to cifs Message-ID: <484DB796.4030204@mawer.org> In-Reply-To: <e7db6d980806091319n1caef691k2b0dbf295d796311@mail.gmail.com> References: <7d6fde3d0806091102k62637099qbaa73ca4d38ff64c@mail.gmail.com> <e7db6d980806091319n1caef691k2b0dbf295d796311@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was wondering if there's been any serious thought put into
>> migrating from smbfs (unmaintained project in kernel / userland since
>> 2001) to cifs (currently supported Samba project). This is the
>> mount_smbfs user tool that's available in userland.
>
> I was surprised to discover that smbfs works as well as it does. I
> really was expecting a whole pile of panics, lockups etc, but for my
> usage level, it seems to just work.
The reason SMBFS probably works as well as it does is that servers
(Windows, Samba, etc) are largely backwards compatible, so the older
smbfs implementation on FreeBSD is able to talk to the appropriate
servers using older protocols.
The main areas where SMBFS currently fails compared with whats available
on Linux etc:
- No support for DFS, which is a reasonably serious impediment
in any enterprise environment using Windows servers
- Performance is less than fantastic
- Problems dealing with various character encodings in filenames
- Doesn't use DNS to resolve hosts (that i know of?), only NetBIOS
The performance can be lived with in most cases, but the other points do
pose varying impediments to more widespread use...
--Antony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?484DB796.4030204>