Mounts to Windows 7 and "out of memory" or "insufficient server resources"

Suresh Jayaraman sjayaraman at
Wed Sep 28 23:12:52 MDT 2011

On 09/29/2011 01:24 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:27:33 -0500
> Steve French <smfrench at> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton at> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:17:25 +0530
>>> Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman at> wrote:
>>>> On 09/28/2011 03:06 AM, Steve French wrote:
>>>>> FYI - The cifs async write in 3.0 seems to exacerbate problems running
>>>>> out of memory (apparently) on the Windows 7 system (running as a
>>>>> server) after a large file copy to the server completes.   I have been
>>>>> able to reproduce the same problem on Windows Vista Service Pack 2
>>>>> (which is a good news/bad news story since my earlier testing on
>>>>> Windows Vista showed hangs on some requests rather than returning out
>>>>> of memory).  Does not seem to be a problem with any of the Windows
>>>>> server versions just Windows 7 and Vista so far.
>>>> The last time when I encountered this, cifs client was reporting "Cannot
>>>> allocate memory" a.k.a -ENOMEM error. But, it is actually a
>>>> NT_STATUS_INSUFF_SERVER_RESOURCES error from Server being mapped to
>>>> -ENOMEM. I found this mapping confusing atleast initially. Is this
>>>> mapping correct?
>>>> Not sure do we have a POSIX equivalent of
>>>> NT_STATUS_INSUFF_SERVER_RESOURCES? Should we map it to a error code that
>>>> is more obvious?
>>> Maybe -EREMOTEIO ?
>> The mapping of NT_STATUS_INSUFFICIENT_SERVER_RESOURCES to posix error
>> ENOMEM appears to be correct for multiple reasons.  Windows itself maps it this
>> way when mapping from NT STATUS to DOS errors. For example, on subsequent
>> requests, I see server returning DOS (!) error for error_no_memory on some
>> types of SMBs and NT error insufficient_server_resources on others.
> I don't know...
> ENOMEM has clear connotations -- it tells you the machine (client) is
> unable to allocate memory. You might be able to stretch that to mean
> that the client is unable to allocate some other resource, but in this
> case it's the *server* not the client that's reporting the problem.

Exactly. I have had customers with whom I had hard time explaining this
is not a client side problem because they argue that it is a client side
memory allocation error and the client should be fixed. I couldn't find
any standard text where the current mapping is documented.

> It seems probable that DOS error codes just lacked anything better for
> this mapping. In our case though, -EREMOTEIO seems like a better
> mapping as it makes it clear that it's the server that can't allocate
> resources, not the client.

-EREMOTEIO sounds very close me. Atleast, it communicates it is a remote
server side issue and not a client side issue.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list