XFS, CIFS filesystem drivers missing

Although Puppy is said to have the "full" zdrv, with all kernel modules, in fact the 'createpuppy' script in Unleashed does remove some modules. These are modules that I thought extremely unlikely that anyone would need.

XFS is one of them. However, forum member integr8e was testing 4.00beta and needs XFS. I did a quick google and came up with this filesystem comparison:

So, anyone else want XFS? The module can be restored.

Another module that is left out is CIFS. Puppy does have SMBFS, which I thought was what we need for Samba sharing. However, I have been doing a bit of quick readup on this and it seems that CIFS is more advanced than SMBFS. See this reference:

So should we have cifs.ko in Puppy?

Posted on 12 Apr 2008, 9:34


Posted on 12 Apr 2008, 10:21 by craftybytes
XFS, CIFS in zdrv..
I would suggest that if they only to be in 'zdrv' then yes include them - I don't know their respective file sizes but if including them prevents any future problems for Puppy users - then any increase in the size of 'zdrv' is going to be outweighed by less problems being experienced..

Just my 0.2c's worth..


Posted on 12 Apr 2008, 13:10 by Sage
fs for BSD
There was a request for BSD fs handling on the Forum recently. I was confused as to what the fs was because the boot messages refer to one system (nfs?) and the running OS refers to another (ufs?).
It would be helpful to have support for whichever is correct as, despite the hype, BSD can break just as easily as all the rest! Nonetheless it is a useful OS for the armoury.

Posted on 12 Apr 2008, 18:39 by John Dubery
CIFS - yes
Certainly CIFS is desirable. CIFS uses unicode filenames, SMBFS uses 8-bit filenames with mapping applied when accessing a unicode-based server (for mapping read kludge).
We had problems at work a while back from using SMBFS to access files with out-of-page characters in them - all solved with CIFS.
My understanding is that if you only include one module, include CIFS.

Posted on 12 Apr 2008, 21:49 by don russell
please incluse cifs
Yes, please include cifs. I work in an environment with a mix of windows and linux machines and a large samba server that provids storage for all. I had endless problems with smbmount getting confused after server reboots and windows domain changes. cifs just works. It works all the time and it works reliably.

Posted on 12 Apr 2008, 24:55 by Justauser
Bring back CIFS
It is the standard.

Posted on 13 Apr 2008, 5:34 by eprv
kernel modules
I think it ok to remove some modules but they should be available on the repository for simple download.
I needed hardware monitor modules hwmon.ko, hwmon-vid.ko vt8231.ko so I had to download the Unleashed and extract it from there.

Posted on 13 Apr 2008, 6:58 by bluepurple
i think CIFS should stay in puppy, it is necessary, besides almost all (if not all) NAS (network aattached storage) OSes or softwares have it e.g. FreeNas, NexentaStor e.t.c.

Posted on 13 Apr 2008, 19:11 by hairywill
include cifs
The latest pnethood (0.6) can use cifs instead of smbmount. This version is experimental and is not of the quality to include in a final iso. I have had some problems with permissions on shares on my work samba server. If any one uses cifs successfully with samba server shares I would welcome their input on the pnethood thread on the forum.

When it is working properly in pnethood cifs should allow both smbmount,623K and nmblookup, 458K to be removed from the main squashfile and replaced with cifs.ko 270K in the zdrv.

The answer to the question is, yes, please include cifs.

Posted on 13 Apr 2008, 21:14 by coolpup
Please include the XFS module.

Now I only use XFS since discovering that it is the quickest FS for operations on large files (>500MB).

Thank you.

Posted on 13 Apr 2008, 22:55 by DreamsToGo
Yes, please include CIFS support, since SMBFS has been 'deprecated'