From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: Question on IPv6 failover. Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 16:08:01 -0700 Message-ID: <524DF8D1.6000503@candelatech.com> References: <524DDBF7.5050709@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" To: Steve French Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 10/03/2013 03:30 PM, Steve French wrote: > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Ben Greear wrote: >> One of our users is reporting that the CIFS failover case is not working >> properly. They have a cluster of CIFS servers that migrate an IPv6 addr >> to the active system. >> >> Evidently, our client-side CIFS connection follows the first migration, >> but fails to go back to the original on a second failover. >> >> It could be any number of things, but I wanted first to see if anyone >> knows how long client-side CIFS will keep attempting to regain contact with >> it's >> server? Forever? >> >> Thanks, >> Ben > > Depends on kernel version and also hard vs. soft (default) mount options. > > The "smb echo" approach that cifs moved to a few years ago allows > the cifs kernel client to notice more quickly that the server is down, > and significantly improved failover. > > Which kernel version? 3.7.10 The hard v/s soft is not being specified when mounting unless the customer did something interesting, so I guess it is soft. I'm still waiting on a network dump, so at this time I have no reason to believe that Linux CIFS is actually to blame...just trying to understand the possibilities better. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com