Re: vmware vs. qemu for XP guest + samba
"koffiejunkie" <koffiejunkielistlurker@koffiejunkie.za.net> wrote in message
[🔎] 46FBA50B.7030405@koffiejunkie.za.net">news:[🔎] 46FBA50B.7030405@koffiejunkie.za.net...
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> > I had to reload new firmware to a Packard Bell AudioKey FM player
because I
> > had stupidly reformatted the vfat fs on it.
> > Problem: qemu' s USB service stinks, but it' s samba use is very good.
Could
> > not use it with the AudioKey inserted: system would hang. But it' s use
of
> > samba works out of the box.
> >
> > So: downloaded the free VMware server and installed that.
> > Its USB service is excellent (but not for USB streaming devices) so I
solved
> > the firmware problem. (But it only works if you insert the key while the
> > firmware is looking for it)
> >
> > But then I noticed that samba did not work on vmware XP but did on qemu
XP.
>
> I'm not familiar with qemu. What do you mean by "it's use of samba works
> out of the box"? Does qemu have it's own samba server built in or
> something?
>
Qemu is a Debian package. You install it and follow the directions in the
man-page for the -smb option and when you have samba installed it just
works.
The problem as I indicated, is that -usb causes problems because of the
nature of qemu' s usb driver.
> I have samba set up on my debian box, vmware server on the same box, and
> all the VMs can see the samba shares fine. I use either 'n private
> subnet with NAT or bridged ethernet, depending on what I'm testing.
>
> If you're using bridged, then yes, you would have to adapt your
> firewall, because the VM would connect to your external network
> interface as if it is coming from outside. If your firewall explicitly
> deals with your primary interface, you'll get away with not having to do
> anything to it if you used a private subnet.
>
>
Reply to: