Confused about samba4 & s3fs

[Gémes Géza]

2012-08-16 21:12 keltezéssel, Rowland Penny írta:
> On 16/08/12 18:40, Gémes Géza wrote:
>> 2012-08-16 19:22 keltezéssel, Rowland Penny írta:
>>> On 16/08/12 15:10, Arvid Requate wrote:
>>>> maybe I should have explained more clearly, that s3fs is a service of
>>>> the samba process that avoids the need to start the smbd separately
>>>> and provides all the internal wiring necessary to authenticate against
>>>> the samba backend. AFAIK s3fs efetively runs the same codebase as
>>>> smbd. So you have to differentiate between three thigs here: first the
>>>> "old style" of running smbd as a separate process, second the
>>>> improved convenience of "s3fs" that runs/forks mostly the same code
>>>> automatically from the samba process itself. And finally the "NTvfs"
>>>> fileserver code, which AFAIK is based on an initiative mainly of 
>>>> Tridge to
>>>> write a fileserver from scratch with an improved internal 
>>>> structure. The
>>>> NTvfs code is still in source4, but it is not the default (as of 
>>>> beta1) as
>>>> it is still in early stages of development and feature completeness as
>>>> compared to the smbd/s3fs code.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>> Sorry I am still confused, I know that if you now start the samba4 
>>> daemon you also get the smbd daemon, you can start the nmbd daemon 
>>> to get network browsing. As far as I can see, all of this works, so 
>>> I ask again, do I use s3fs so it can be tested or not?
>>>
>>> If testing is not required, why was all the effort put into adding 
>>> s3fs to samba4?
>>>
>>> Rowland
>>>
>> No the services offered by nmbd in a Samba3 installation are offered 
>> by the samba binary on a Samba4 install, s3fs means (in a simplified 
>> manner) load the Samba3 smbd for serving files. The user facing 
>> benefit of using s3fs instead of ntvfs is, that Samba3s smbd (and 
>> thus s3fs) has received lots of improvements (like support for newer 
>> smb/cifs dialects used by Vista/7) which didn't were ported to ntvfs.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Geza Gemes
>>
>>
> Slightly less confused now, as far as I can see, this means that we 
> should be running s3fs to serve files (i.e. the smbd daemon) and the 
> samba daemon takes care of authentication.
>
> What I am confused about now is Geza's statement about nmbd, he seems 
> to be saying that you can have the server browseable just by running 
> the samba daemon, but I have to run the nmbd daemon for the server 
> shares to be visible.
>
> Rowland
>
On the samba4 install the samba binary listens on the port (137/udp and 
138/udp) nmbd would listen on a samba3 install, however the samba4 
implementation doesn't offer browsing support (yet). Because of that you 
can't run nmbd on the host where you run samba4 (unless you employ 
tricky virtual interfaces and bind interfaces only configurations).

Regards

Geza Gemes