Re: Linux and drive mapping to Windows 2003 Server

From: --> AW (aaronwright_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 04/11/05

  • Next message: wideangle_at_gmail.com: "Re: Drivers for Linux - compared to Windows"
    Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:34:24 GMT
    
    

    "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
    message news:fbmoi2-dvi.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.setup, Zane
    > <zane@yahoo.com>
    > wrote
    > on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:09:48 GMT
    > <wCg6e.79$JJ2.60@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>:
    >> We have 35 users at our company and we use Windows 2003 Active Directory
    >> (Domain Controller) and Exchange 2003.
    >>
    >> I would like to connect and begin adding RHEL4 (Red Hat 4 Workstations)
    >> into
    >> the network. Currently, we have about 6 drive mappings for our client
    >> machines (XP) pointing to several SHARES on the Domain Controller (also
    >> file
    >> server).
    >>
    >> Question:
    >> ---------
    >>
    >> How do I get these same drive mappings in RHEL4 (preferrably)or Linux in
    >> general?
    >> For example, H: drive = \\SERVER\Home.
    >
    > RHEL4 (and most, if not all, other Linux distros)
    > won't be able to understand "drive mappings" as such,
    > as the nomenclature is different. In Unix and in Linux,
    > one speaks of mounting volumes. In your particular case,
    > you can easily mount what turns out to be a 'smbfs' filesystem,
    > if your kernel has the right modules and/or build settings
    > (since most "generic" kernels include everything but the
    > kitchen sink I for one anticipate no real problems here).
    >
    > However, you'll need to make a decision: precisely where did you
    > want to mount it? For instance, one can create the directory
    > /mnt/h (RedHat, like most other distros, has /mnt/floppy
    > and /mnt/cdrom, methinks) and then mount the share:
    >
    > mount -t smbfs //SERVER/SomeShare /mnt/h
    >
    > Or one can simply create /mnt/someshare and mount it there;
    > driveletters are so 80's. :-) Whichever works for your employees.
    >
    > There are some options which I'd frankly have to research, though.
    > It's also not clear how automatic this process can be; the way
    > I mount things at $EMPLOYER I have to type in my Windows password.
    >
    > There is also the issue of who owns the files on the mounted volume.
    > I'll have to refer you to the documentation; I've set it up at
    > $EMPLOYER but have forgotten the details.
    >
    > You can partly automate the process, if you like, for the non-home
    > shares. Entries in /etc/fstab similar to
    >
    > //Server/OtherShare /mnt/g smbfs noauto,user 0 0
    >
    > should work. Other options are also available (e.g. uid=someusername)
    > but again I'll have to refer you to the SAMBA docs.
    >
    > You'll probably want encrypted passwords, too.
    >
    > Another warning: there are two naming methods between Linux
    > and Windows. Linux prefers DNS (although 'nmblookup' does allow
    > for the finding of a given user's workstation). Windows has WINS.
    > They coexist peacefully enough.
    >
    >>
    >> Btw, my goal is to replace the DC as a File Server with a Samba Server
    >> also...not right now, as clien machines are my priority for conversion.
    >
    > Do it right and no one will notice. :-) (Except perhaps for the
    > improved reliability.) There are some gotchas, though, mostly because
    > the Linux filesystems tend to be case-sensitive, whereas the
    > Windows ones are merely case-preserving; if one creates a file
    > named 'Fubar.doc' and accesses it using 'FUBAR.DOC' on a Windows
    > system, the Windows system will give you the file, but the
    > Linux system may look at you funny, depending on your Samba
    > settings.
    >
    > You can also make that Samba Server export NFS volumes as well.
    > I don't know how the two compare efficiency wise; one would hope
    > NFS is more efficient. Obviously, though, that gets us out of
    > setup-space and more into performance-space -- and is also an
    > issue down the road, not right now.
    >
    >>
    >> Thank You.
    >>
    >
    > Good luck. :-)
    >
    > --
    > #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    > It's still legal to go .sigless.

    Thank you for your insights and time.


  • Next message: wideangle_at_gmail.com: "Re: Drivers for Linux - compared to Windows"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Future of IT in Lebanon
      ... It's the same Linux code base. ... Microsoft Office on a Windows server, it will install and run fine, the main ...
      (soc.culture.lebanon)
    • Re: Question about Red Hat Linux Enterprise
      ... we have is running Windows 2000 Server ... Luckily running Apache + MySQL on a Linux system is not a lot ... MySQL database and injecting it back into the MySQL installation ...
      (comp.os.linux.networking)
    • Re: Sweet Success
      ... Let's continue to assume that I prefer Windows to anything else: ... neither Linux nor Windows may be the answer. ... While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based ... of Linux simultaneously, along with Windows Server, AIX, and OS/400. ...
      (RedHat)
    • Re: [Full-disclosure] 70 million computers are using Windows 98 right now
      ... Linux is definitely not a natural migration pathway. ... Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Mac OS X seem to work pretty ... > desktop to server. ... But then the persons across the sea just can't install ...
      (Full-Disclosure)
    • Re: Benutzerkontenverwaltung mit Win 2003 Server - Teil 2
      ... und dann bin ich über Solaris zur ersten 30-Disketten-Version Linux ... Server auch keine grafische Oberfläche, der vi ist halt mein bester ... Und das ganze geht schon in Ansätzen seit Windows NT so ... > Unternehmensnetzwerk unter Unix administrieren könnte. ...
      (microsoft.public.de.german.windows.server.networking)