I believe smbmount is only supported on linux, as for smbmount to work your kernel has to support the smbfs filesystem. I could be wrong about this, but I don't believe there is smbfs support for the solaris kernel yet.
If you just need to copy files from CIFS Servers, smbclient and smbtar can do that for you, but you can't actually mount the CIFS share as a file system on Solaris yet.
This from Sun's web site:
Samba provides SMBFS file system support in the Linux kernel, which enables folders shared from Microsoft Windows systems to be directly mounted on the Linux file system, using the smbmount command. However, the Samba development team has not yet ported the SMBFS kernel module to the Solaris platform. For this reason, Solaris can not use the smbmount command to mount folders shared from Windows computers. In the Solaris platform, the smbtar utility accomplishes this instead.
I believe smbmount is only supported on linux, as for smbmount to work your kernel has to support the smbfs filesystem. I could be wrong about this, but I don't believe there is smbfs support for the solaris kernel yet.
Correct.
As an alternative, you could look at 'sharity'.
I believe smbmount is only supported on linux,
Actually, mounting from SMB servers is now supported on FreeBSD and MacOS X (although perhaps under a different name in MacOS X); FreeBSD 4.4 has smbfs in the kernel, and a command to mount SMB file systems in the "net/smbfs" port in the ports collection, and MacOS X 10.1 includes an SMB client file system as well.
(Perhaps there's now a non-marketing reason to call them "CIFS" servers rather than "SMB" servers, as an "SMB server" now all too often means a server for Small and Medium-size Businesses....)
as for smbmount to work your kernel has to support the smbfs filesystem. I could be wrong about this, but I don't believe there is smbfs support for the solaris kernel yet.
There's none that I know of. Perhaps it'll sneak into Solaris 9, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.
I suppose somebody with sufficient ambition could port the FreeBSD one (the BSD VFS interface is probably more like the SVR4/Solaris one than is the Linux VFS interface, so it'd probably be less painful; however, the VFS interface, and the VM/etc. primitives, are still different, so neither would would, I suspect, be trivial to port).
-
Darren Dunham -
Guy Harris -
Mike Sphar