RE: [opensuse] smbmount failed??
On Monday 12 March 2007 9:54 pm, John Andersen wrote:
So why the hell did Suse decide to outright DROP smbfs is they can co-exist? You would think they would put both in and solicit community feedback on which ones work better and what the problems were?
Isn't that the purpose of opensuse? To find problems before they find their way into SLED?
I agree with you, of course.
I'm getting a little tire of being a test bed with no choice in the
matter. Well, you do have a choice: you can poke around until you fortuitiously discover that recompiling the kernel is the solution, and then go through the labor needed to implement that solution. Or you can live with the workarounds -- which neither of us was willing to do. ~~~ I'm connecting to our windows' shares using names instead IP addresses using cifs and not experiencing any problems (Suse 9.1 -10.0). What is it that can't be done using cifs? One thing I noticed that I prefer using cifs over smbfs is if the windows box is rebooted, the cifs mount recovers while the smbfs mounts would timeout and become unmountable. ~James -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 12:12 am, James D. Parra wrote:
I'm connecting to our windows' shares using names instead IP addresses using cifs and not experiencing any problems (Suse 9.1 -10.0).
What is it that can't be done using cifs? One thing I noticed that I prefer using cifs over smbfs is if the windows box is rebooted, the cifs mount recovers while the smbfs mounts would timeout and become unmountable.
I have hostnames on my LAN that smbfs can resolve but cifs cannot. The answer "use a fixed IP address" is not very satisfying if you're running fully dynamic DHCP. And to say "don't use fully dynamic DHCP" is to have the tail wagging the dog. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Paul Abrahams wrote:
I have hostnames on my LAN that smbfs can resolve but cifs cannot. The answer "use a fixed IP address" is not very satisfying if you're running fully dynamic DHCP.
Could you define what you mean by "fully dynamic DHCP"? If your DHCP server is changing IP addresses constantly, even if it is updating the DNS server, it is misconfigured. It will give out the same IP to the same NIC every time, unless its range is too small for the number of machines connecting. -- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871 running openSUSE 10.2 x86_64 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 8:27 pm, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:
Could you define what you mean by "fully dynamic DHCP"? If your DHCP server is changing IP addresses constantly, even if it is updating the DNS server, it is misconfigured. It will give out the same IP to the same NIC every time, unless its range is too small for the number of machines connecting.
In fact I have fixed IP addresses assigned using my router's DHCP configuration page, but I don't like the idea of counting on that -- it just seems unnecessarily rigid. Fully dynamic to me means that your configuration continues to work no matter how the router decides to assign the DHCP addresses --- even in the case, say, where you're adding machines to the LAN or removing them unpredictably. I wonder -- if I remove all my machines from the LAN for a month (so the router forgets the configuration) and reconnect them in a different order than I did originally, will the IP addresses still stay the same? I thought the way DHCP works is that when the router sees a machine it hasn't seen before, it assigns it the lowest available IP number in the DHCP range. Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 22:13, Paul Abrahams wrote:
In fact I have fixed IP addresses assigned using my router's DHCP configuration page, but I don't like the idea of counting on that -- it just seems unnecessarily rigid. Try not to think of static reservations as a rigid method of implementing DHCP, but rather a flexible way to implement static IP's. Static reservations are also quite reliable.
Fully dynamic to me means that your configuration continues to work no matter how the router decides to assign the DHCP addresses --- even in the case, say, where you're adding machines to the LAN or removing them unpredictably. Agreed. Static reservations are a bit of a compromise with a fully dynamic configuration.
I wonder -- if I remove all my machines from the LAN for a month (so the router forgets the configuration) and reconnect them in a different order than I did originally, will the IP addresses still stay the same? Yes. If you are really using static reservations, the router will not "forget" them. It is often the client that keeps the address the same. When a DHCP client renews its address, it will first send a unicast to the previous DHCP server requesting a renewal or new lease of the same IP that it last had.
I thought the way DHCP works is that when the router sees a machine it hasn't seen before, it assigns it the lowest available IP number in the DHCP range. Most do this. (Assuming, of course, that no reservation exists for that MAC address, and the client did not request a different address)
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
James D. Parra
-
Joe Morris (NTM)
-
Paul Abrahams
-
Wade Jones