On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Jeremy Allison <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 06:22:01PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> >> Treating different calls differently for timeouts sounds like the road >> to special-case madness. It seems to me that the best behavior would be >> to have the client wait for a reply indefinitely if the server is >> responding to periodic echoes. If that's unacceptable then perhaps a >> tunable timeout that defaults to something very long (10 minutes or so). > > +1 from me. "hard" mounts shouldn't drop connections whilst the > server is responding to SMBecho requests.
In NFS, hard mounts also mean that the connection will transparently be re-established on connection failures. That is difficult in cifs since of its statefullness. (While nfs is partially stateful, sane people stay well clear of the stateful parts (nlm)) ronnie s > Jeremy. > _______________________________________________ > Pfif mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.tridgell.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pfif > _______________________________________________ cifs-protocol mailing list [email protected] https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
