Best practices: Adding Persistent Handle support
ttalpey at microsoft.com
Mon Jun 5 13:45:43 UTC 2017
Snipping to just one topic for this...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher R. Hertel [mailto:crh at samba.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 12:12 AM
> To: Tom Talpey <ttalpey at microsoft.com>; Stefan Metzmacher
> <metze at samba.org>; Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org>
> Cc: samba-technical at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: Best practices: Adding Persistent Handle support
> Responding to a few intertwined threads here...
> From one pedant to another, your clear definitions of Continued Availability
> and (vs.) Persistent Handles is quite helpful and appreciated. From a
> practical perspective, it seems to me that if the SMB3 server does not have
> any shares that provide Continuous Availability, then it should not send
> SMB2_GLOBAL_CAP_PERSISTENT_HANDLES since it cannot actually provide
> Persistent Handles.
Well, that's not how Windows does it. Persistence is handled by an entirely
separate component, above the filesystems, called the Resume Key Filter (RKF).
The server global persistence *capability* reflects only the presence of this
The persistence *implementation*, on the other hand, is per-handle, and is
determined by the filesystem at handle creation time. Totally separate subsystems,
and although they often come and go together, they're not monolithic*.
* Monolithic: "One Big Rock" :-)
More information about the samba-technical