Difference between smbmount mount.cifs and mount -t
Linux - ServerThis forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Difference between smbmount mount.cifs and mount -t
Hello,
I am wondering what exactly is the difference between:
smbmount
mount.cifs
mount -t smbfs
mount -t cifs
I am asking because a NAS vendor supports 'mount -t smbfs'. Anyway I came across the other choices and would like to know of this is depend on the server (Samba, windows 2000&2003&2008 etc.) and what is exactly important to know about it.
mount -t cifs will call the mount.cifs program, and the same for smbmount / mount -t smbfs, so whilst they are related, the two, cifs & smbfs, have nothing in common when they are executed.
...the difference between:
smbmount
mount.cifs
mount -t smbfs
mount -t cifs
smbmount and 'mount -t smbfs' create the same resulting mount of a samba share. ('smbmount' is a Debian wrapper script which gets you to the business end of 'mount.smbfs').
mount.cifs allows you to mount the Windoze proprietary(?) shared filesystem.
smbmount is NOT a debian script, it's a tool from the samba client package across many different distro's.
"mount -t smbfs" is not for mounting samba shares, it's for mounting Server Message Block filesystems, which is what Windows Network exports. Samba got it's name as a word containing the letters S M and B in that order.
CIFS *IS* SMB to all extents and purposes, or rather (AFAIK) the iteration of the code developed by Microsoft since 1996. From the Linux perspective, mount.cifs has simply superceded mount.cifs functionality over the last 18 months or so, and I would guess this is largely in line with M$ releasing the SMB2 standard as part of vista with a published API and added functionality, making a clean break more logical and feasible. From the perspective of a general user, they do the same job.
Last edited by acid_kewpie; 11-01-2009 at 04:07 PM.
use the one that works. mount.smbfs is officially obsolete now though, and I would certainly never expect mount.cifs to not be 100% backwards compatible. If a NAS product (Which? ONtap an re-brands like Ibm NetFiler work well with both) says it privdes windows shares, then it's going to be striving to work as closely as possible to behave like windows. But then at the same time I think ONtap actually uses samba anyway.
cifs stands for the "common internet file system". It was defined by a consortium of companies that included Microsoft. It adds support for Unix permissions, including facls. Microsoft chose not to support it (their own standard!)but use the term. You want to use it for mounting samba shares and for newer kernels, the smbfs kernel driver is not available. The cifs driver will revert to the behavior of the smbfs driver if the server doesn't support the unix cifs extensions.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.