[2115] in linux-net channel archive

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: Problem with smbfs (missing files/directories)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Cameron)
Fri Mar 15 14:34:08 1996

Date: 	Fri, 15 Mar 1996 21:11:32 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Andrew Cameron <andrew@andy.alt.za>
To: Scott Laird <scott@laird.com>
cc: mhw@wittsend.com, linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu,
        linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-admin@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <m0txT6f-000GG7C@laird.com>

On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Scott Laird wrote:

> 
> > 	Recently, one of our management types gave me a list of "directories"
> > on "his system" that he wanted backed up.  Suprise!  One of the directories
> > did NOT show up in an "ls" of a mount of his file system (mounted root
> > directory of his "C:" drive).  It also was NOT found by "find" when I ran
> > "find . -print" on that directory!  I could, however, "cd" to that directory
> > even though it did not show up in a directory listing!  i.e. When in his
> > mounted directory "ls" did not show "foo" but "cd foo" succeeds and "ls" then
> > shows the contents of "c:\foo"!
> > 
> > 	That was strange enough!  I then went to the samba client and did
> > a listing of his drive.  The missing directory and many other items showed
> > up in the smbclient directory which did not show up in the smbfs directory
> > listing!  It looks like maybe somewhere from 5 to 10 percent (CWAG - Crude
> > Wild Ass Guess) of the entries from this system do not appear in the smbfs
> > listing which do appear in the smbclient listing.  There does not appear to
> > be anything "missing" from the smbclient listing, only the smbfs listing.
> > 
> > 	This did NOT appear related to "hidden" files or "system" files
> > since many of the missing entries where common files and directories while
> > other "hidden" or "system" entries did appear in both.
> 
> I've had vaguely similar problems with smbfs, and I suspect they're 
> caused by a race condition somewhere in the smbfs directory code, but I 
> don't really have anything to base that on.
> 
> I, too, have tried backing up via tar over smbfs, and I've met with 
> some different problems.  I've been trying to backup two (or more) 
> Windows 95 boxes at once for speed reasons.  I've found that, from time 
> to time, I'll get a "file not found" error from tar.  The weird thing 
> is that tar gives me an error complaining that it can't find /pc/A/foo, 
> when the file foo is _only_ found on system B, which was being backed 
> up at the same time.  Somehow, an attempt to list a directory on A gave 
> tar a filename that only existed on B.
> 
> This has all happened running 1.3.37.  I'd love to upgrade, but I 
> haven't been able to keep a more current kernel up for more than 24 
> hours at a time, while 1.3.37 stays up for weeks at a stretch without 
> major problems.
> 
> I can kill newer kernels (including 1.3.71) by simply mounting two 
> smbfs drives (on different systems) and running 'find /pc/A' and 'find 
> /pc/B' at the same time.  I start getting protocol errors from smbfs 
> within 30 seconds, and the system appears slightly unstable after this.
> 
> I (unfortunately) don't have the exact error messages in front of me -- 
> they're sitting at work, and I'm at home right now.  I believe smbfs 
> was complaining about receiving more bytes than the protocol told it to 
> expect, but that's from memory.  I usually give better bug reports :-).
> 
> The system in question is an AMD 486DX4/100 on a ASUS PCI/I SP3G 
> motherboard.  The system has 24 MB of RAM, one IDE Fireball, one 
> Baracuda (on the internal NCR-based SCSI port), one Connor DAT, and a 
> SCSI CD-ROM.  It uses a WD Ultra Ethernet board and a Stealth 64 PCI 
> video card.
> 
> I'm using AMD to automount the smbfs disks, and that might be part of 
> my problem.  I haven't had time to disable AMD and try mounting the 
> disks by hand yet, and I probably won't for at least a week, due to 
> finals.
> 
> Is there _anyone_ out there who uses smbfs successfully for non-trivial 
> uses?
> 
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> 

Try Kernel version 1.3.57. I have found it to be very stable. It may 
solve you problem.

 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Cameron
Internet : andrew@andy.alt.za
X.400    : C=ZA G=Andrew S=Cameron Admd=TELKOM400

----------------------------------------------------------------------------



home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post