On 02/14/2014 01:17 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
That's basically what cache=loose does with cifs. One might consider
that to be an NFS-like caching model. That used to be the default
behavior, but we changed it a few years ago since strict adherence
to the protocol is really the only way to ensure that you don't end up
with data corruption.
The main problem with that is that Windows servers do lazy updates to
their LastWriteTime (aka mtime), so watching for mtime changes is not a
reliable method for detecting when a file has changed.
Ok
That's correct. If you however, mount with cache=loose then fsc should
persist across reboots as long as the files don't appear to have
changed. That has its own problems however, particularly if you're
dealing with Windows servers (see the comment above about lazy updates
to LastWriteTime).
This also match with what I observed through my tests :)
One thing you could consider is looking into BranchCache if you are
using a relatively recent Windows infrastructure:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/dd425028.aspx
Chris Hertel had also started a project to implement something similar
on unix-y OS' as well, but I'm not sure of the current state of that
work.
True, but I can't use Windows 2008R2/2012 on the remote box (this is a
requirement), so branchcache is not an option here. After all, in a
Windows server to Windows server scenario, DFSR would be a very
compelling solution (even better then branchcache, in my opinion).
Let me thank all you for the time dedicated to me and to the samba project!
--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@xxxxxxxxxx - info@xxxxxxxxxx
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8
--
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
