Re: CIFS mount hangs
<gently>
This is why some (me) people dislike top posters and prefer to ignore
them over posters who make the effort to interleave their replies. Not
only does it require extra work to read the post and put it into context
- it 'seems' to also encourages posters to *not* read what they are
replying to. I could be wrong about that - but it coincides with
occasions when I ask for information that is not supplied after asking.
That mouse thing moves the cursor ;)
</gently>
On 23/11/13 01:45, assmann@skygate.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so I did some testing with a clone of the machine restored to the
> state before the upgrade to wheezy.
>
> Squeeze:
> - Mount the share
> - Disable the share on windows host
> - Try to access the share with 'ls' results in 'no such device'
> - Enable the share on windows host
> - Try to access the share with 'ls' is successful
>
> Wheezy:
> - Mount the share
> - Disable the share on windows host
> - Try to access the share with 'ls' results in 'Server ... has not
> responded in 300 seconds' .. and an error from ls after well 300
> seconds i would say.
There's your most likely problem (read on).
> Until this the shell hangs and the access can not be interupted with
> CTRL-C.
> - Enable the share on windows host
> - Try to access the share with 'ls' is successful but shows an empty
> dir.
> - Remount brings the content back
> - Connection is lost after some time of inactivity (share is still
> available under squeeze)
>
> This is the behavoiur when I manually disable the share. But in 'real
> life' the share is not diabled by anyone. It is still visible in the
> windows network environment.
Do you mean cifs (e.g. smbclient)? Or Windows(C) environment? There's a
major difference.
>
> I have now tried this:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org/msg06161.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org/msg06173.html is
also interesting - though I'd still check the timeout settings on the
samba server/s first (instead of cifs mount).
>
> Will see how this will work out.
>
> Thanks so far!
>
> Tobias
>
>> On 21/11/13 22:39, assmann@skygate.de wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
<snipped>
>
>> How does "$ testparm -v" on the new box compare with the same from the
>> box that did work?
?? Did you read that?
>
>>>
>>> Any ideas to debug and understand are welcome.
>
>> The output of:
>> $ testparm -v
?? Did you read that?
I'd suggest you look at the timeout values. Just a thought..... :)
>
>> Plus the settings used on the boxes that host the samba resources might
>> be informative.
Might be informative?
I meant "extremely useful"
Sorry.
>> Do you have any logs from the other boxes?
??
>
>>>
<snipped>
Kind regards
Reply to: