Re: smbfs - still no-go

Steven N. Hirsch (shirsch@ibm.net)
Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:04:33 -0500 (EST)


On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Bill Hawes wrote:

> Steven N. Hirsch wrote:
> > Sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings, but the latest round of smbfs and
> > smbclient patches haven't changed the behavior one iota :-(.
>
> Hi Steve,
> Just want to make sure we're in sync, as I did post two patches against
> 2.1.70 smbfs, and one other tester has reported success with WfW. The
> size of the gunzipped file should be 31944.

That's the one I'm using, and it is _not_ working. Wonder what the
difference is between my setup and the one that works?

> I don't know the answer yet. You might check the smbclient man page --
> if there's an argument to specify max xmit, give that a try. Smbclient
> basically sets up and negotiates the connection for smbfs.

It looks like they are dynamically calculating the max xmit, but I haven't
had time to really study the code. Smbclient does _not_ have a means to
make this user-settable. Do you have the source for the older smbmount?
If so, take a look at what -m does.

Steve