mount vs smbmount

[Urban Widmark]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Bill Parker wrote:

> The machine I am trying to use smbmount (or mount for that matter) does
> not run DNS (caching or otherwise, but I could do this if needed).  Now,
> if the NT machine I need to connect to has a FQDN of www.somewhere.com
> (with proper IP address), I could say the following to mount the share
> from linux (via smbmount) like this:
> 
> smbmount //www.somewhere.com/C$ /mnt/ntserver -U <username on nt machine>

This is, as far as I know, incorrect. SMB does not use DNS, it uses its
own naming system and the name in the mount command should be the
"NetBios" name of the NT box.

That syntax suggests smbmount from an old samba version. Try upgrading to
samba-2.0.7.
(and if you do, be sure to remove all traces of your existing version,
 such as wierd scripts that try to convert options from one format to
 another).

Sometimes it may be necessary to point it to the right IP#, which you can
do with the "ip=a.b.c.d" option in samba 2.0.7. Something like:
% smbmount //NTBOX/C\$ /mnt/ntserver -o username=a,password=b,ip=1.2.3.4
(some shells require escaping the $, thus \$)


> [root at htmlodds log]# mount /mnt/server1
> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on //inet_server_1/c$,
>        or too many mounted file systems

This is simply the mount failing, it can be almost anything.


> Now the kernel I am running is 2.2.18pre-21 (which fixes some smbfs bugs)
> and my mount version is 2.9s, but here is the error message in /var/log
> messages:
> 
> Nov 19 14:59:20 htmlodds kernel: SMBFS: need mount version 6

Didn't you report before that mounts were "dropped", giving -3 error
codes? If so, you must have managed to mount the fs somehow. What are you
doing differently now (and why change if it worked before?).

That message is generated if the smbmount you are using is too old (very
old), or if some bug is causing the mount data to be corrupted/misread.

/Urban