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

ronnie sahlberg ronniesahlberg at gmail.com
Wed Dec 8 05:07:42 MST 2010

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, 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.

In NFS,   hard mounts also mean that the connection will transparently
be re-established on connection failures.
That is difficult in cifs since of its statefullness.
(While nfs is partially stateful, sane people stay well clear of the
stateful parts (nlm))

ronnie s

> Jeremy.
> _______________________________________________
> Pfif mailing list
> Pfif at mail.tridgell.net
> http://lists.tridgell.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pfif

More information about the cifs-protocol mailing list