[jcifs] More and more transport threads in blocking state

[Venkatesh D]

Thank you very much Mike! Its a firewall issue.

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Michael B Allen <ioplex at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dev <vendeve at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Michael B Allen <ioplex <at> gmail.com> writes:
> >> Hi Stefan,
> >>
> >> I believe the "connection in error" condition will only occur if you
> >> try to reuse the same transport after it just choked. Then, just in
> >> case the server suddenly becomes alive at some point, it resets the
> >> connection state. Thats why you then go back to "connect timed out". I
> >> never really liked that behavior because it seems clumsey to ping-pong
> >> between two different errors. But it's not obvious to me that anything
> >> is logically wrong with this behavior. Think about it. If you try to
> >> connect to a server and it chokes, why mindlessly try to connect to
> >> the same server again? You should have some logic in your code that
> >> catches the exception and just removes all targets on that server from
> >> the list for the current scan.
> >>
> >> So I would say that with some adjustment to your code as described
> >> above and combined with using responseTimeout > connTimeout, that
> >> should give you correct results.
> >>
> >> If you're still not getting the desired result, please explain what
> >> you think the correct results should be.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I am getting the below exception when I try to use JCIFS-1.3.17.jar.
> >  Please let me know what is the
> > resolution.
>
> Hi Dev,
>
> Easy. Fix the network / other end to accept the connection.
>
> > Also can you let me know what are the ports that
> >  JCIFS uses to connect to the destination
> > server? Is it something if we try to open the ports from source
> >  to destination would help?
>
> Like a firewall problem? Certainly.
>
> JCIFS uses TCP port 445 [1].
>
> Mike
>
> [1] Techincally JCIFS actually fails over to port 139 if 445 is not
> available. But I don't know of any servers that only listen on 139.
> Maybe some really old version of Samba. So port 139 can / should just
> be ignored because if 445 doesn't work, 139 won't either.
>
> --
> Michael B Allen
> Java Active Directory Integration
> http://www.ioplex.com/
>
> > osgi.wiring.package=*) -> [0]
> > jcifs.smb.SmbException: Failed to connect: 0.0.0.0(00)/10.12.212.41
> > jcifs.util.transport.TransportException: Connection timeout
> >         at jcifs.util.transport.Transport.connect(Transport.java:174)
> >         at jcifs.smb.SmbTransport.connect(SmbTransport.java:307)
> >         at jcifs.smb.SmbTree.treeConnect(SmbTree.java:156)
> >         at jcifs.smb.SmbFile.doConnect(SmbFile.java:911)
> >         at jcifs.smb.SmbFile.connect(SmbFile.java:954)
> >         at jcifs.smb.SmbFile.connect0(SmbFile.java:880)
> >         at jcifs.smb.SmbFile.open0(SmbFile.java:972)
> >         at jcifs.smb.SmbFile.open(SmbFile.java:1006)
> >         at
> jcifs.smb.SmbFileInputStream.<init>(SmbFileInputStream.java:73)
> >         at
> jcifs.smb.SmbFileInputStream.<init>(SmbFileInputStream.java:65)
> >         at
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/jcifs/attachments/20150514/4a2ea854/attachment.html>