[Samba] i wanna umount....

[Urban Widmark]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Jay Ts wrote:

> Is it possible, instead of a set timeout period, to have it specified
> as an option to smbfs? The long timeout periods have been my biggest
> annoyance with smbfs (which I use a lot), and I'd like to have the
> freedom to set the timeout period myself.  Probably to something
> closer to 5 seconds, or even less.  30 seconds is still a long
> time to wait!

The patch includes a 'timeo' option, so it is configurable. The default is
30. Sometimes you will see timeouts of 2 * timeo, one to detect a 
connection error and another to fail to reconnect.

Before this patch there are no timeouts (except on reconnection attempts)
in smbfs, instead it relies on the tcp layer doing that. But a lot of
times that produces really long timeout periods.


> Also, have you looked at the options available with NFS and other
> filesystems, as in the mount(8) manual page, and thought
> about which could be included in smbfs?  I'm asking because I may
> want to replace my NFS mounts with smbfs mounts someday.  Would it
> be practical to implement the "soft" vs. "hard" options?  Then the
> "timeo=time" could be used with "soft" to get the control I want.

The plan is to make smbfs a lot "soft"-er by making the user process
calling into smbfs interruptible at all times. The current version of that
code has a memory leak but is otherwise working fine.

If there is demand I guess a "hard" version could be made too. But most
people seem to like the idea of being able to interrupt things.

/Urban