s is my highest priority. If you would like to
> provide feedback on your case you may contact my manager at nkang at
> Microsoft dot com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Obaid Farooqi
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:44 AM
> To: 'Jeff Layton'
> C
can fill a
write request?
Thanks for any info you can provide!
- --
Jeff Layton
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPmuasAAoJEAAOaEEZVoIVskQP/0+D09k+8gWthZvBrpbLms1B
q7ZQBcBHNCJZos7ZG+K/9ZHzGVKxtnmW2rDiQ+r5vQ/z9EK4QP3pd6V+L
es Windows actually do in this regard? If you are not allowed
to do that by the protocol, then does it follow this strictly or does it
do as Steve suggests and batch up small writes until it can fill a
write request?
Thanks for any info you can provide!
- --
Jeff Layton
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---
MaxMpxCount of 50 and I spawn 100
threads that attempt to acquire blocking locks. What happens at that
point? Will the client end up using all of the slots for blocking locks
in such a way that nothing else can get through? Or does it allow you
to exceed that value somehow?
Thanks for the info!
--
edback on your case you may contact my manager at
> allis...@microsoft.com.
>
> -
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cifs-protocol-boun...@cifs.org [mailto:cifs-protocol-boun...@cifs.o
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:42:01 -0700
George K Colley wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 6:43 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > I've been doing some testing with signing enabled and have found that
&
r a bug?
2) is this common to all (most?) versions of windows?
3) is there some way we can detect what the server's limit is in this situation?
Thanks and let me know if you need clarification on these questions,
- --
Jeff Layton
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GN
e server is still around? I don't
see a way for us to detect such a broken device if not.
--
Jeff Layton
___
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@cifs.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
ally test Win98 or NT. It's rather difficult to find working media
for them nowadays since they're not available on MSDN (hint, hint).
This capture was done with a win2k8 client. I'll have to take your word
for it that they behave in the same way.
--
Jeff Layton
___
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@cifs.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:07:42 +1100
ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 06:22:01PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>
> >> Treating different calls differently for timeouts sounds like the road
>
ng a reconnect, but my experience doesn't bear out what
you're saying above. If you're interested I can set this up again and
provide some captures.
--
Jeff Layton
___
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@cifs.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 20:16:46 -0600
Steve French wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:42:30 -0600
> > Steve French wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Volker Lendecke
> > > wrote:
> &
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:42:30 -0600
Steve French wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Volker Lendecke
> 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
> > > beh
like a more
radical step than what I have proposed. We'd need to understand what
recourse the user would have in practice and what the behavior will be
in various failure scenarios. Leaving the processes hung and logging a
message when the server isn
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:06:46 -0600
Shirish Pargaonkar wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 06:25:07 -0600
> > Shirish Pargaonkar wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>
&
On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 06:25:07 -0600
Shirish Pargaonkar wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:13:21 +0100
> > Volker Lendecke wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:54:13PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrot
se
the new one is a reconnect and needs to reclaim state.
The question is how to check that validity. Unfortunately, the best you
can probably do is rely on TCP keepalives.
--
Jeff Layton
___
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@cifs.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/cifs-protocol
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 21:54:13 -0600
"Christopher R. Hertel" wrote:
> Jeff Layton wrote:
> :
> :
> > Timeouts:
> > =
> > It's tempting to think of SMB as being very similar to NFS/RPC, but
> > when it comes to low-level transport, there are s
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:40:06 -0800
Jeremy Allison 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 wou
the server is still down, so
that umounts can proceed in that case.
Open question here -- what should be done with new syscalls issued on
soft mounts while the socket is still unconnected? Should they block
until the socket is connected or should they return an immediate error?
I can see arguments f
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:12:28 -0600
Steve French wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Volker Lendecke
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:50:11PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > Probably needs two tests. One to see what happens if the (single)
> > &g
write request was sent.
The timeout before sending an echo also seems to vary quite a bit. My
suspicion is that that indicates that the client has the echo ping on a
separate timer, and just selectively sends it whenever the timer pops
based on certain criteria.
--
Jeff Layton
__
Yeah, I fear that this is going to require me to do "Real Work" ;)
I just started working on a patch to make samba discard WriteAndX
requests which may help me to simulate this scenario. I'll post any
results here that I find (but it may take a little while for me to
collect them
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:44:44 -0600
"Christopher R. Hertel" wrote:
> Jeff Layton wrote:
> :
> > Yes, this is probably stretching the definition of protocol
> > clarification, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask... :)
>
> Not at all.
>
> Keep in m
eck will be difficult. It is somewhat obscure
> particularly on the Windows98 client. That's my memory, anyway.
> It has been a long time since I had a look at that code.
>
> - The Windows98 client code and the Windows NT client code is
> *different*. You need to ch
el the outstanding request?
3) If it waits indefinitely, does it send more than one echo request?
If so, how frequently are they sent?
4) Do more recent versions of Windows behave similarly?
--
Jeff Layton
___
cifs-protocol mailing list
cifs-protocol@ci
lient seems to expect this and everything seems to work
correctly, but I'm wondering why aren't those fields there? The list of
fields in the "Data Block Encoding" should be the fields returned, in
that order, correct?
Am I misreading the
27 matches
Mail list logo
