[cifs-protocol] [Pfif] [REG: 110120160951867] Requesting clarification of CIFS client timeout behavior

[Jeff Layton]

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:40:06 -0800
Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 06:22:01PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > 
> > Treating different calls differently for timeouts sounds like the road
> > to special-case madness. It seems to me that the best behavior would be
> > to have the client wait for a reply indefinitely if the server is
> > responding to periodic echoes. If that's unacceptable then perhaps a
> > tunable timeout that defaults to something very long (10 minutes or so).
> 
> +1 from me. "hard" mounts shouldn't drop connections whilst the
> server is responding to SMBecho requests.
> 
> Jeremy.

Well...the meaning of hard and soft is another open topic. FWIW,
this thread has sort of drifted from my earlier request to MS about
clarifying Windows' behavior.

The discussion here is a good one, but I think it deserves a separate
email thread. I've started that with this email that I cross-posted to
several mailing lists.

    http://lists.samba.org/archive/cifs-protocol/2010-December/001676.html

I'd appreciate all of your opinions on this writeup (apologies in
advance for the length).

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton at samba.org>