Re: Problem with Samba re-share of a CIFS mount

[Gionatan Danti <g.danti-N44kj/XGErOonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org>]

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