Confused about samba4 & s3fs

[Rowland Penny]

On 16/08/12 20:58, Gémes Géza wrote:
> 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
>
>
well you have got me really confused now, you say that you can't run 
nmbd on the samba4 host without pulling tricks. Well because I don't 
know better, I just started the nmbd daemon on the samba4 server and I 
can now browse to the visible shares from windows xp and linux clients, 
just what am I doing wrong ;-)

Rowland


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.