2012/2/29 Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx>: > Attempt to summarize after discussions with jra and Chris: > > - don't make default case to Samba worse performance than it already is > - don't "fix" by adding restrictions on echo retries and blocking > locks when it is not broken (windows allows these, and counts blocking > locks against the pid not against the session). For servers which > allow few mpx, perhaps those for 10 or fewer - if you think they are > buggy, I don't mind treating echo and blocking locks differently than > we do now - but echo and blocking locks don't need to be restricted > the way Pavel suggested to windows and samba and any normal server > (and there is some risk in restricting them that way). We could > probably limit the number of blocking locks (out of resource error, > returning ENOLOCK) when there are 50 (e.g.) on a process (or 10 if the > server supports maxmpx of 10, and zero if maxmpx is less than 3 or > less than 10). > - for other smb requests (the ones we enforce today) enforce the limit > the server returns (rather than 50 always) > But for SMB2 we need to count both echos and blocking locks. It even more compicated because the number of credits is dynamic: we need to increment/decrement the maximum number of parallel blocking locks to make sure we don't exceed available credits. -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- 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
