From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gionatan Danti Subject: Re: Problem with Samba re-share of a CIFS mount Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:10:16 +0100 Message-ID: <52FE23C8.8060804@assyoma.it> References: <52F9EDA5.1020004@assyoma.it> <20140211103302.6d74b90d@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <52FA46D5.8020904@assyoma.it> <20140211124536.5fdcb56f@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20140213063738.1b345466@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <52FD0109.5030909@assyoma.it> <20140213144038.2101ea44@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <52FDEF0D.8010708@assyoma.it> <20140214071724.725d8545@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jeff Layton , Steve French , James McDonough , Suresh Jayaraman , "Christopher R. Hertel" , Gionatan Danti To: "linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140214071724.725d8545-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 02/14/2014 01:17 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > That's basically what cache=loose does with cifs. One might consider > that to be an NFS-like caching model. That used to be the default > behavior, but we changed it a few years ago since strict adherence > to the protocol is really the only way to ensure that you don't end up > with data corruption. > > The main problem with that is that Windows servers do lazy updates to > their LastWriteTime (aka mtime), so watching for mtime changes is not a > reliable method for detecting when a file has changed. Ok > That's correct. If you however, mount with cache=loose then fsc should > persist across reboots as long as the files don't appear to have > changed. That has its own problems however, particularly if you're > dealing with Windows servers (see the comment above about lazy updates > to LastWriteTime). This also match with what I observed through my tests :) > One thing you could consider is looking into BranchCache if you are > using a relatively recent Windows infrastructure: > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/dd425028.aspx > > Chris Hertel had also started a project to implement something similar > on unix-y OS' as well, but I'm not sure of the current state of that > work. > True, but I can't use Windows 2008R2/2012 on the remote box (this is a requirement), so branchcache is not an option here. After all, in a Windows server to Windows server scenario, DFSR would be a very compelling solution (even better then branchcache, in my opinion). Let me thank all you for the time dedicated to me and to the samba project! -- Danti Gionatan Supporto Tecnico Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it email: g.danti-N44kj/XGErOonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org - info-N44kj/XGErOonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8