[linux-cifs-client] Re: Some problems with linux-cifs

[Steven French]

The comment about locking up Nautilus reminds me of the D_NOTIFY support
...
Make sure you turn CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL off (it is a build option in make
menuconfig), the D_NOTIFY support
which is not quite complete is on when CIFS_EXPERIMENTAL is enabled


Steve French
Senior Software Engineer
Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin
phone: 512-838-2294
email: sfrench at-sign us dot ibm dot com

Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph at divmod.com> wrote on 05/03/2005 09:37:15 PM:

> Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> > Steven French wrote:
>
> > With the RHEL version of 1.34 the build seems to be progressing
> > smoothly.  It hasn't linked yet, but it's past the point where it was
> > dying before.
> >
> > I'll publish .ko's for a few different stock ubuntu kernels if they
work
> > out OK.
>
> After learning more about building kernel modules than I really cared to
> know, I managed to get a working cifs module, but it seemed to have the
> problem that I was facing with the previous version of the cifs module
> even worse.
>
> Since I've now tested with the latest version and it's still a problem I
> guess now I'll report the issue :).  I was under the impression that
> cifs(fs) was unequivocally better than smbfs in terms of linux clients
> for samba and win32 file sharing servers.  I was having a minor issue
> with smbfs where occasionally it would seize up and the process
> accessing the drive would become defunct.  I thought cifs might fix this.
>
> Far from fixing it, cifs instead exacerbated the problem, locking up
> nautilus within minutes of trying (rather than days) to access any of my
> shares.  This causes nautilus, gam_server, and any other processes that
> happen to be accessing the volume at the time become both <defunct> and
> completely unkillable, despite telling 'init' to reap its children
> repeatedly.
>
> I've replicated this behavior on 3 linux machines, all running ubuntu,
> with both the 1.28 that shipped with 2.6.10 and a 1.34[RHEL] I built
> myself against that kernel.  There are two desktops on a wired network
> with different network cards (an AMD64 box and an Athlon) and a laptop
> on the wireless using an ipw2200 (a Pentium M).  I have also booted
> Windows on 2 of these machines and verified that there are no lock-ups,
> hangs or disconnects from Windows clients, nor using the "connect to
> server" feature on Mac OS X.
>
> I'm using an "embedded" device, the Buffalo Tech TeraStation:
>
>
http://buffalotech.com/products/product-detail.php?productid=97&categoryid=19

>
> Which according to smbclient is:
>
> Domain=[WORKGROUP] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 2.2.8a-ja-1.1]
>
> I know that samba 2 is not too popular with the devs any more... could
> an interaction with that be causing the problem?
>
> I've got a trouble ticket open with buffalo tech now since the device is
> supposedly going to support NFS through a firmware update "any day now"
> and I imagine that NFS would be a better choice for UNIX filesharing if
> I can get it going.  Still, "any day now" could be 6 months from now,
> and I'd like to have something semi-stable for my linux clients in the
> meanwhile.
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed