cifs client timeouts and hard/soft mounts

Steve French smfrench at
Mon Dec 6 13:44:09 MST 2010

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Christopher R. Hertel <crh at> wrote:
> Volker Lendecke wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 12:54:30PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
>>> There are a lot of companies out there that do WAN acceleration and each of
>>> them do things differently, so there is no good answer to your quite
>>> rational question.  Some of the vendors are very focused on "just like the
>>> real thing" behavior while others are willing to compromise behavior in
>>> favor of acceleration.
>>> The best-known product in this market would be Riverbed.  BlueCoat is
>>> another, I think.
>> Sorry, but if a WAN accelerator does not have the smarts to
>> see that if a client sends smbechos, it is in trouble, then
>> that WAN accelerator is just broken. It does not necessarily
>> need to send these echos across the WAN link, but it must
>> trigger its own server liveliness check at this point.
> I agree.
> That's why these companies hire me, though.  They have *no clue* when it
> comes to CIFS and they run into brick walls at full speed.
> When it comes down to it, though, anyone with smarts and half a clue would
> avoid SMB/CIFS if at all possible.  Most of what we do with Samba and the
> CIFS client is mitigate stupidity.  :)
> ...and we're good at it too!

Now that I have experimented with smb2,  it does seem better (and the
alternatives are worse)



More information about the samba-technical mailing list