Brad Felmey wrote: [...] >> >>What happens after network connectivity returns? >> > > It's dead, and doesn't return. > > [..]
> As I state below, 2.2.1 at least works just fine, as does 2.2.2, > although I haven't tested it as extensively as I have 2.2.1 and 2.2.3a. > > >>|>Syslog shows a kernel failure: >> > > <snip bunch of kernel puke> > > >>Well, this looks like a kernel smbfs issue ... not a samba issue. >> > > Then why does it not show up with 2.2.1? That's what is puzzling me. One query though, what version of samba was running on the server you were mounting? > > Presuming it is a kernel issue, should I then bring this to Juan's > attention? > Any time you see a kernel stack trace, I think that would be worthwhile ... > > I'm sorry to hear you can't. I can. It's making my life a living hell. > I'm getting sick of getting paged at 02:00 because some process failed > due to a blown mount. I understand your frustration ... > >>This really isn't what smbfs and samba are for. The samba team >>recommends using NFS between samba boxes rather than smbfs cross-mounts. >> > > Thank you, but the idea is to have live connectivity. The un-live part > comes from a rotten power grid. We have about 40% of the machines in > this building on UPS. Some of the machines I have to connect to are not > on UPS. My question is, why do you need to cross-mount (or smbmount the Windows boxes) the samba boxes? Is it for desktops to have a consistent file structure across different machines, or for copying data between servers? I think you should definitely have a look at setting msdfs either way, as it could simplify your situation. Otherwise, using scp with keys might also be a good option (for copying files between servers etc). > > The whole reason I chose Samba is because of its previous behavior as a > rather forgiving platform when connectivity drops. Unlike NFS, I could > usually recover from a hung Samba session. I personally view NFS as the > bastard spawn of Satan. I hate it with a passion. I like the idea of a > UNIX-to-UNIX shared filesystem, but it's dog-slow, unstable, and when it > crashes, it WILL NOT recover. When and if the Linux NFS people can make > it work like something I can rely upon, I'll give it another shot. > Hmmm, NFS has been working quite well for us, however, our main file server (samba PDC, NFS homes etc) is always the last to go down, and we don't mount anything else between servers. > >>Well, as I say, 2.2.3a is working fine for me, and this looks more like >>a kernel issue than anything else. If I can reproduce it, I can try and >>track it down, but I can't reproduce this ... >> > > Okay, that's your prerogative. I doubt the wisdom of putting out Mdk 8.2 > with a crashing and unrecoverable Samba/smbfs/whateverItIs, but it's not > my call, I guess. Well, it's not my call either ... Sylvestre will probably have to be the decision taker here, he should be back Monday at the latest. Choosing between a crashing smbmount and memory leaking winbind with file locking races is a tough choice. I will do a bit more testing tonight at home, but if you have any more info on how I could try and reproduce this, it would help .... I will see if I can get anything relating to this from the samba mailing lists and developers .... Buchan -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/gpg.key
