From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suresh Jayaraman Subject: Re: Writes greater than 64k fails with -ENOSPC Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:22:15 +0530 Message-ID: <510A3ECF.2080505@suse.com> References: <5107BF75.704@suse.com> <20130129192913.4942c635@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA044F2484@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20130130093729.736ad582@corrin.poochiereds.net> <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA044F2E62@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-cifs To: Tom Talpey Return-path: In-Reply-To: <614F550557B82C44AC27C492ADA391AA044F2E62-Jfd81uAzPQsmBPcf4Gwd0Fir+X/St4rqwBk/1ggFUS45P9zcU8sUGwC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 01/30/2013 09:36 PM, Tom Talpey wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff Layton [mailto:jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:37 AM >> To: Tom Talpey >> Cc: Suresh Jayaraman; linux-cifs >> Subject: Re: Writes greater than 64k fails with -ENOSPC >> >> The spec is not 100% clear on whether servers are *required* to support >> arbitrarily large writes up to the 128k limit. Clearly there are some that do >> not, and a larger default is problematic against those servers. > > I'd be very interested to see traces of negotiate, large read and large write from such a server. I'm not sure whether I can share the complete trace (without customer's permission) but I can get you the specific bits that might be interesting. I have asked for a full trace (including negotiate protocol). Thanks -- Suresh Jayaraman