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! Chris -)----- -- "Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq. ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxxxxx OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh@xxxxxxxxx -- 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
