Re: Linux 3.2.17 and netapp 8.1

[VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN <eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 05/15/2012 03:09 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:20:14 +0200
> VALETTE Eric RD-MAPS-REN<eric2.valette-C0LM0jrOve7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2012 07:15 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> BTW: I've seen prototype SMB2 support in git tress pushed in october.
>>> Any plan to submit something upstream?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your support,
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, we're working on it. I think we've come to some consensus on a
>>> basic design and I believe Pavel is now working to forward-port the
>>> previous patches to that design.
>>>
>> OK. Will wait then. Any chance it might helps with the netapp?
>>
>>> In Netapps defense Ontap 8.1 is an early release which are known to be buggy.
>> Well its been released around february if google can be trusted and what
>> this says is that netapp don't care about Linux support at all and do
>> not even perform basic test with linux client. I'm rather sure we asked
>> about linux compatibility before moving from 7.xx to 8.01.
>>
>> -- eric
>>
> For the record...
>
> The story I've heard in the past (albeit second or third hand) is that
> Netapp is not interested in interop with non-windows clients. It's
> possible however that this is not the case and my info is wrong. I'm
> not a netapp customer, so I don't have a direct line to their support
> organization.
>
> If that's not the case, then I'd be more than happy to work with Netapp
> to help them eliminate these bugs. They're a frequent source of pain
> for users on our mailing lists.
>
> Obviously, their code is closed-source so we can't offer patches, but we
> can help them analyze traces and point out protocol errors if it would
> help them track down these problems.
>
Thanks for the offer. Has we (as a large company) do have many netapp 
filers, some of them working correctly, we may try to put some pressure 
on them. The current plans are to record wireshark traces and to first 
submit a formal bug to netapp. Unfortunately, I will probably not be 
authorized nor capable to make it myself since I'm not in charge of the 
filer and have no reference on contractual support number.

Then, depending on netapp answer,  if I'm still in the loop, I may 
propose to shorten the loop so that developers on both side have good 
direct communication channel.

Thanks for your support.

-- eric