[Samba] cifs verses smbfs for Linux clients
David C. Rankin
drankinatty at suddenlinkmail.com
Mon Feb 18 23:59:37 GMT 2008
Michael Lueck wrote:
> I am somewhat confused...
> I understand that the preferred method to mount a Samba share with a
> Linux client is to use "mount -t cifs" rather than "mount -t smbfs".
> I get the impression that smbfs is samba.org developed code where as
> cifs is from elsewhere. Thus the point of confusion. Why is samba.org
> not developing the preferred code in this case?
> A sub question to that main one is a nagging thought of needing to add
> the Debian / Ubuntu smbfs package to Linux client systems issuing "mount
> -t cifs". If cifs really is from elsewhere, and smbfs is "bad evil", why
> the interdependency?
If I recall correctly smbfs was deprecated in favor of cifs when cifs
was made a permanent part of the kernel in the 2.4 or 2.4-2.6 kernel.
This provided a uniform way to implement an smbfs mount through the
kernel instead or relying on package dependent smbmount.
Whether you are doing:
mount -t smbfs; or
mount -t cifs (also mount.cifs)
your are accomplishing the same thing. I used smbmount for a long time,
then cifs was made the standard and I have used cifs since then. I have
From man mount:
Since various versions of the smbmount program have different
calling conventions, /sbin/mount.smbfs may have to be a shell script
that sets up the desired call.
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
More information about the samba