[Samba] Large File Access from Linux to Linux Host using Samba

[Bobby Hitt]

Hello again,

Correction, CIFS did not fix the problem, I can't get it to work with with a
Linux server from a Linux client. With two boxes named L-A and L-B, I can
connect using mount.cifs from L-A to L-B, but not vice-versa. On the
direction that fails, I get a NASTY register dump with a segmentation fault.
Meaningless to me, unfortunately. The only thing that makes since is the
dump says it's caused by mount.cifs. I was using kernel 2.4.23 with the cifs
0.9.9a patch, no problems patching. In fact, I'm using the same source for
both hosts. Lastly I get these nasty error messages in the syslog on the
client (L-B):

Jan 12 08:05:21 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: Error -32 sending data on socket to
server.
Jan 12 08:05:21 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: Active MIDs in queue while exiting -
can not delete mid_q_entries or TCP_Server_Info structure due to pending
requests MEMORY LEAK!!
Jan 12 08:05:32 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code = -4
Jan 12 08:05:48 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: Error -32 sending data on socket to
server.
Jan 12 08:05:48 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: Active MIDs in queue while exiting -
can not delete mid_q_entries or TCP_Server_Info structure due to pending
requests MEMORY LEAK!!
Jan 12 08:06:03 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code
= -112
Jan 12 08:07:34 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: Error -32 sending data on socket to
server.
Jan 12 08:07:34 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: Active MIDs in queue while exiting -
can not delete mid_q_entries or TCP_Server_Info structure due to pending
requests MEMORY LEAK!!
Jan 12 08:07:49 www kernel:  CIFS VFS: cifs_mount failed w/return code
= -112

As far as any hardware problems, the failing host typically stays up for
weeks, only being rebooted for software changes. Before using it locally, it
was the main dns server for my old network, once staying up for almost a
year without being rebooted. A failed power supply colling fan finally
brought it down.

On the server side (L-A), I get:

Jan 12 08:20:00 gateway rpc.mountd: refused mount request from
test.bscnet.com for /mnt (/): no export entry
Jan 12 08:20:16 gateway rpc.mountd: refused mount request from
test.bscnet.com for / (/): no export entry
Jan 12 08:34:37 gateway rpc.mountd: refused mount request from
test.bscnet.com for / (/): no export entry
Jan 12 08:35:09 gateway rpc.mountd: refused mount request from
test.bscnet.com for / (/): no export entry

What is meant by "no export entry"? to connect from either side, I use the
command:

mount.cifs    //server_name/share_name    /local_dir    -o
username=root,password=xxxx

I assume the exports are the same as the ones in the smb.conf file, and
besides, it works in one direction. The only difference between the working
and failing hosts is that the working one is a PII 500 Mhz cpu, the failing
one is a Pentium-MMX cpu.

Lastly I'm recompiling the kernel on the failing host using the classic
Pentium instead of the MMX. Other than that, I'm at wit's end.

Any help is appreciated,

Bobby

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bobby Hitt
To: samba at lists.samba.org
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Large File Access from Linux to Linux Host using Samba

Hi,

Using CIFS cured the problem, thanks for the help.

Bobby

----- Original Message ----- 
From: David Morel
To: samba at lists.samba.org
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Samba] Large File Access from Linux to Linux Host using Samba

Le dim 11/01/2004 à 02:29, Bobby Hitt a écrit :

> Does anyone know why the file size is being displayed incorrectly, and
more
> importantly, what do I need to do to correct the problem? Reading and
> writing large files to both the Linux hosts works fine with W2K, the
problem
> is that Linux can't access large files using Samba

wrong. SMBFS can't(kernel space) but CIFS (patches or 2.6 kernel) or
smbclient (which is part of the samba package) can. Use smbclient
instead, or patch your kernel to use cifs. Anyway, if the hosts are two
*nix machines, you'd be better off using nfs in my opinion

David