[NTLUG:Discuss] SAMBA Problem (I Think)

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Fri, 2004-12-24 at 09:17, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> We're using smbfs/smbmount at work for some very heavy file operations, 
> i.e. several million operations per day.

Are you merely transferring files?
Or running programs on those mounted filesystems?

The former is usually safe.
The latter gets into some issues with codepage, case, etc...

Not so much if you connect to a Samba server, because it adds the proper
extensions.  But to native SMB servers, they _lack_ a lot of meta-data
that the Linux VFS expects -- especially traditional UNIX/Linux
programs.

> We have clusters of Linux systems accessing Windows 2003 fileservers.

Again, just for file transfers?  Or for running programs?

> Except for the occasional Windows hiccup, its been very solid.

Windows 2003 improves the SMB protocol.  I had numerous issues with
Windows NT and 2000 servers to Linux systems running programs.

> During the hiccups when Windows stops responding, smbfs does what its
> supposed to do and stays connected, or reconnects as needed.

That's good to now see.  It looks like smbfs works better than native
SMB clients.

> The Linux smbfs mounts seem to be rock solid, much more solid than NFS
> used to be.

The problem with native SMB servers is that they don't support all the
meta-data that the Linux VFS expects -- again, especially for
traditional UNIX/Linux programs.

Again, major difference between file transfers and running programs. 
Would not surprise me if Konqueror is hitting a directory that throws a
curve at the Linux VFS.

Never had issues with NFS v3 myself.  NFS v2 had some issues, but that's
because the Linux implementation is not IETF-compliant.

> So, I do not know where your problems lie, but I don't think its Samba.

It's not Samba.  In fact, if you connect to a Samba server, it does a
good job of handling just about _any_ curve that the Linux VFS will
throw at it.

But if you connect to a native SMB server, and a program throws a Linux
VFS access the native SMB server doesn't expect, the Samba client can't
do much about that.  And that's the problem.



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith at ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.