On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:42:30 -0600 > Steve French <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Volker Lendecke > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:28:11PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > So, what does this mean for CIFS clients? I believe that the best > > > > behavior for the client is to *never* time out an individual request, > > > > aside from SMB echoes. > > > > > > I like this concept. > > > > > > > > That will break apps that can't take ctl-c though ... > > > > How will waiting indefinitely for a response break applications? > Returning an error just because the server is slow seems far more > likely to break applications. > > Now, in the (IMO unlikely) event that a server is responding to > echoes but not other calls, you'd have an that application will hang > until someone kills it. I think that's acceptable however: > > It's an unlikely situation, and anyone who has a client faced with it > has a way to recover from the hang. They can kill the application. The > server in this case would be clearly broken however. > > I am more worried about firewall rule changes and similar events than about broken servers - but the idea of waiting forever on stat to a server that is never going to respond seems odd. -- Thanks, Steve
_______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
