On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Christopher R. Hertel <crh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Volker Lendecke wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 12:54:30PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote: >>> There are a lot of companies out there that do WAN acceleration and each of >>> them do things differently, so there is no good answer to your quite >>> rational question. Some of the vendors are very focused on "just like the >>> real thing" behavior while others are willing to compromise behavior in >>> favor of acceleration. >>> >>> The best-known product in this market would be Riverbed. BlueCoat is >>> another, I think. >> >> Sorry, but if a WAN accelerator does not have the smarts to >> see that if a client sends smbechos, it is in trouble, then >> that WAN accelerator is just broken. It does not necessarily >> need to send these echos across the WAN link, but it must >> trigger its own server liveliness check at this point. > > I agree. > > That's why these companies hire me, though. They have *no clue* when it > comes to CIFS and they run into brick walls at full speed. > > When it comes down to it, though, anyone with smarts and half a clue would > avoid SMB/CIFS if at all possible. Most of what we do with Samba and the > CIFS client is mitigate stupidity. :) > > ...and we're good at it too! Now that I have experimented with smb2, it does seem better (and the alternatives are worse) -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
