From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: simo Subject: Re: [cifs-protocol] cifs client timeouts and hard/soft mounts Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:49:15 -0500 Message-ID: <1291654155.3167.6.camel@pico.li.ssimo.org> References: <20101203212811.17594274@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20101205210634.602b076b@corrin.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, Volker.Lendecke@sernet.de, cifs-protocol@samba.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org To: Steve French Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: samba-technical-bounces@lists.samba.org Errors-To: samba-technical-bounces@lists.samba.org List-Id: linux-cifs.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:28 -0600, Steve French wrote: > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Volker Lendecke > wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 08:16:46PM -0600, Steve French wrote: > >> I am more worried about firewall rule changes and similar events > >> than about broken servers - but the idea of waiting forever on stat > >> to a server that is never going to respond seems odd. > > > > That would be a strange fw rule that allows SMBEcho but not > > other SMB requests. I think if someone puts up such a silly > > rule, some pain is deserved :-) > > Aaah - remember the proxies that cut out "chatty" smb traffic by > responding on behalf of remote servers in the interest of optimizing > traffic over slow links :) They better send their own smb echos to remote servers then ... Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc.