Poster | Thread |
Daedalus
| |
Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 1-Feb-2016 8:58:39
| | [ #1 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 1680
From: Glasgow - UK, Irish born | | |
|
| Hi all, I was wondering was it possible to get in touch with whoever did the SMBFS port for MorphOS? I'd like to find out what is involved in getting the fixes to the MorphOS version backported to the 68k version, since I can access Windows 7 shares fine from MOS but not from my OS3.9 machine. I can't find any information on it in the documentation on my MOS machine, so I'm hoping someone here might know.
I tried to ask about this on the MorphOS mailing list but it looks like my mail never showed up...
Thanks! _________________ RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Belxjander
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 1-Feb-2016 9:41:50
| | [ #2 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 4-Jan-2005 Posts: 557
From: Chiba prefecture Japan | | |
|
| @Daedalus
I would definitely be interesting in this for my AOS4 system as well...
I need to link up multiple machines and ssh is currently the most reliable, samba and ftp are my next choices...
Hope there is access to sources or someone provides an option for this. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Sir_Lucas
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 1-Feb-2016 11:55:02
| | [ #3 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 7-Jul-2006 Posts: 121
From: Poland | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Daedalus
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 1-Feb-2016 16:25:46
| | [ #4 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 1680
From: Glasgow - UK, Irish born | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
olsen
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 1-Feb-2016 17:16:51
| | [ #5 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 15-Aug-2004 Posts: 774
From: Germany | | |
|
| @Daedalus
Quote:
Daedalus wrote: @Sir_Lucas
I've actually received a reply from the mailing list today, so hopefully we can get somewhere from there. |
I'm interested, too. Getting anywhere with figuring out what goes wrong in the original smbfs is just too hard to be fun.
My original plan was to first find out what exactly the smbfs implementation does when it talks to the server. Trouble is, the code is largely undocumented (it was created through reverse-engineering).
The "only" existing documentation on the SMB protocol is so voluminous that looking for clues as to what's going on is like reading the entire volume 3 of Donald Knuth's "The Art of Computer programming" just to figure out how QuickSort works.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Sir_Lucas
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 1-Feb-2016 18:37:26
| | [ #6 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 7-Jul-2006 Posts: 121
From: Poland | | |
|
| @Daedalus That's great :) Sounds very promising.
_________________ AmiParty Team Member Chelm, Poland |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
logicalheart
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 2-Feb-2016 2:00:46
| | [ #7 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 2-Dec-2003 Posts: 696
From: Sandy, Utah. USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Daedalus
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 2-Feb-2016 9:03:51
| | [ #8 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 1680
From: Glasgow - UK, Irish born | | |
|
| Well, don't get your hopes up just yet. First is to actually see if the modifications to smbfs are available, and then see how much work is involved re-integrating those changes into the SourceForge smbfs, if it's possible at all. Sadly I'm not the greatest programmer when it comes to low-level stuff like system handlers, so I don't know if I'd be able to do that by myself, but perhaps the current maintainers of the MorphOS version might be able to help with reintegration into the 68k code, or someone who has worked on it before. If that ever comes to be, I'm sure there are some OS4 programmers who could make the necessary adjustments to get it to run natively. _________________ RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
vulture
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 2-Feb-2016 11:15:52
| | [ #9 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 21-Sep-2006 Posts: 225
From: Greece | | |
|
| @Daedalus
I believe Olaf Barthel has done some on and off work on trying to update Samba to a more current status. So, maybe, if you contact him and ask for his help, you won't be starting from point zero.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
TRIPOS
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 2-Feb-2016 13:35:49
| | [ #10 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 4-Apr-2014 Posts: 1204
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @vulture
Olsen posted just a few posts above...
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
vulture
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 2-Feb-2016 18:31:09
| | [ #11 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 21-Sep-2006 Posts: 225
From: Greece | | |
|
| @TRIPOS
doh! stupid me.... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
olsen
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 9-Apr-2016 10:54:35
| | [ #12 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 15-Aug-2004 Posts: 774
From: Germany | | |
|
| It took a while, but I just released an updated smbfs 1.102 on sourceforge.net.
This version contains much improved support for Windows (Vista, 7, etc.) as well as numerous fixes for bugs, some of which are at least 15 years old.
I managed to round up all the relevant documentation for the protocols which smbfs uses and created a message decoder which prints the contents of every data exchange between smbfs and the file server. This helped tracking down the most obscure bugs, such as the smbfs accidentally triggering a different error reporting mode on the server.
This release also fixes bugs in the raw read/write operations which could result in random junk showing up in files being read, and files created to remain empty.
Please note that the "modern" variants of the protocol which underlies the smbfs operations (SMB2 and SMB3) are still unsupported. It's just that the more modest changes which happened in Windows Vista, etc. now actually are supported.
I would like to thank Harry Sintonen, David Gerber and Frank Mariak for the changes made to the MorphOS version of smbfs which I was permitted to integrate into this release, and to Matthew McDonald, Rob Cranley and Huber Maier, who tested the updated versions of smbfs as they evolved.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pvanni
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 10:19:38
| | [ #13 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 25-Aug-2003 Posts: 470
From: Lecco, Italy | | |
|
| @olsen many thanks, it work well also with Windows 10, great work, it would be nice to also have a samba version that work with the widow latest versions
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
olsen
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 13:54:59
| | [ #14 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 15-Aug-2004 Posts: 774
From: Germany | | |
|
| @pvanni
Quote:
pvanni wrote: @olsen many thanks, it work well also with Windows 10, great work, it would be nice to also have a samba version that work with the widow latest versions
| When I had finished this update, a crazy idea came to me. I hope somebody will talk me out of it: now that I know much better how the interaction between the SMB client and server works, it might be possible to create a small, limited SMB file server for AmigaOS. Samba is a comprehensive solution which also includes file sharing, but you might not need 90% of what it does if you are interested in the file sharing functionality only.
Anyway, this kind of thing (restricted SMB file server) has been done before, for other platforms, but due to how wicked SMB is, interoperability may be limited. But it might just be sufficient to allow for Windows 95/NT compatibility to work. It might also be sufficient to allow for smbfs to successfully interact with it.
So, please talk me out of it I suspect that it will be hard to make this "restricted SMB file server" work. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Daedalus
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 14:24:29
| | [ #15 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 1680
From: Glasgow - UK, Irish born | | |
|
| @olsen
Brilliant, thanks very much for your work on this! I'm sure many people will find it very useful - myself included.
I'm not going to talk you out of a limited samba server But of course I can imagine how much of a monster the full Samba code is to work with so I wouldn't blame anyone for not touching it. Such a thing would be a great development for the Amiga however - maybe it's something that would be simpler to write from scratch, than to strip down the full Samba codebase? _________________ RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pvanni
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 16:10:45
| | [ #16 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 25-Aug-2003 Posts: 470
From: Lecco, Italy | | |
|
| @olsen for me a restricted SMB server would be great, I think I never used other functionality than the file sharing |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
DWolfman
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 17:02:17
| | [ #17 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 18-Jun-2003 Posts: 1442
From: Leavenworth, KS USA | | |
|
| @olsen
Just curious (since I can't check this while at work), did this also fix the speed issues SMBFS had when transferring data to another computer? _________________ This posting, in it's entirety, is the opinion and/or statement of the author and does not reflect the views and/or position of this site. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
vulture
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 18:23:58
| | [ #18 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 21-Sep-2006 Posts: 225
From: Greece | | |
|
| @olsen
That's godly man!
Can't thank you enough for this!
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
smf
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 20:25:15
| | [ #19 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 15-Mar-2003 Posts: 333
From: Växjö, Sweden | | |
|
| Well done Olsen! What a great suprise, thank you so much. This release should not be burried in a thread like this, spread it :)
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Daedalus
| |
Re: Question Regarding SMBFS Posted on 13-Apr-2016 20:28:19
| | [ #20 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 14-Jul-2003 Posts: 1680
From: Glasgow - UK, Irish born | | |
|
| @DWolfman
Not by the looks of it - it seems to be a much deeper problem... I've just done a quick test copying a 3.8MB MP3 from my Amiga (1200/060/Mediator) to my Windows 7 machine. It took 3 minutes 32 to complete the transfer. Copying the same file from the Windows 7 machine took 20 seconds. _________________ RobTheNerd.com | InstallerGen | SMBMounter | Atoms-X |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|