Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3135 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [opensuse] samba vs cifs ... what's the diff?
- From: John Andersen <jsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:11:08 -0900
- Message-id: <200703122111.09637.jsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Monday 12 March 2007, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> On 3/12/07, John Andersen <jsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Samba is a service that allows you to PUBLISH shares for other
> > computers to mount.
> >
> > smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to
> > MOUNT a share published by a samab server or a windows
> > box. (perhaps to do a backup or some such)
>
> ahh .. ok, perfect.
>
> So the appropriate comparison is NOT samba vs cifs, but rather smbfs
> vs cifs. Both are client protocols/virtual file system
> implementations.
>
> So, from google reading, cifs was apparently microsofts addition to
> the original SMB file system spec ... and now, it is a somewhat newer
> vfs that can exist along side of or instead of smbfs. Theoretically it
> offers, newer/better/fancier services/access to remote SAMBA provided
> storage.
>
> About right?
>
> Thanx John!
>
> Peter
I think that's about it, although I can't vouch for just how much
is Microsoft's input to this and how much comes from other sources.
Wikipedia had a pretty good write up last I checked.
--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
> On 3/12/07, John Andersen <jsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Samba is a service that allows you to PUBLISH shares for other
> > computers to mount.
> >
> > smbfs and cifs are file systems that allow your Linux box to
> > MOUNT a share published by a samab server or a windows
> > box. (perhaps to do a backup or some such)
>
> ahh .. ok, perfect.
>
> So the appropriate comparison is NOT samba vs cifs, but rather smbfs
> vs cifs. Both are client protocols/virtual file system
> implementations.
>
> So, from google reading, cifs was apparently microsofts addition to
> the original SMB file system spec ... and now, it is a somewhat newer
> vfs that can exist along side of or instead of smbfs. Theoretically it
> offers, newer/better/fancier services/access to remote SAMBA provided
> storage.
>
> About right?
>
> Thanx John!
>
> Peter
I think that's about it, although I can't vouch for just how much
is Microsoft's input to this and how much comes from other sources.
Wikipedia had a pretty good write up last I checked.
--
_____________________________________
John Andersen
| < Previous | Next > |