<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Jeff Layton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jlayton@samba.org">jlayton@samba.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:42:30 -0600<br>
Steve French <<a href="mailto:smfrench@gmail.com">smfrench@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Volker Lendecke<br>
> <<a href="mailto:Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de">Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:28:11PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:<br>
> > > So, what does this mean for CIFS clients? I believe that the best<br>
> > > behavior for the client is to *never* time out an individual request,<br>
> > > aside from SMB echoes.<br>
> ><br>
> > I like this concept.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> That will break apps that can't take ctl-c though ...<br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div>How will waiting indefinitely for a response break applications?<br>
Returning an error just because the server is slow seems far more<br>
likely to break applications.<br>
<br>
Now, in the (IMO unlikely) event that a server is responding to<br>
echoes but not other calls, you'd have an that application will hang<br>
until someone kills it. I think that's acceptable however:<br>
<br>
It's an unlikely situation, and anyone who has a client faced with it<br>
has a way to recover from the hang. They can kill the application. The<br>
server in this case would be clearly broken however.<br>
<div><div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br>I am more worried about firewall rule changes and similar events<br>than about broken servers - but the idea of waiting forever on stat<br>to a server that is never going to respond seems odd.<br>
<br>-- <br>Thanks,<br><br>Steve<br>