Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "smb2misc".
2019 Feb 14
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda at gmail.com> writes:
> I found something interesting in /proc/fs/cifs/Stats. Notice the
> "QueryDirectories > Failed" number. This keeps increasing as along as `ls
> -lR` is running.
That's interesting indeed. The verbose logs and network trace would tell
us more.
--
Aurélien Aptel / SUSE Labs Samba Team
GPG: 1839 CB5F 9F5B FB9B AA97
2019 Feb 15
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
...verbose logs and network trace would tell
> us more.
>
I've enabled verbose/debug logging on the client side. Here are a few
operations from the log, and my observations on them:
1) Why is the log saying `SMB2` everywhere? Shouldn't it be saying `SMB3`?
2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156
mismatch mid 11907
3) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/misc.c: Null buffer passed to
cifs_small_buf_release
4) Is this normal --
fs/cifs/readdir.c: index not in buffer - could not findnext into
it
fs/cifs/readdir.c: could not find entry
5) This definit...
2018 Sep 16
2
Can't copy large files to Windows with SMB2/3 on 10G network
...eturned 0xc000009a
STATUS_INSUFFICIENT_RESOURCES
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] cifs_demultiplex_thread: 927 callbacks suppressed
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/connect.c: RFC1002 header 0x50
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] smb2_check_message: 929 callbacks suppressed
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: smb2_check_message
length: 0x54, smb_buf_length: 0x50
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] smb2_calc_size: 929 callbacks suppressed
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: SMB2 len 85
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] smb2_check_message: 3 callbacks suppressed
[Fri Aug 31 17:22:21 2018] fs/cifs/smb2misc....
2019 Feb 15
3
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
...`?
"SMB3" is mostly marketing, it inherits almost everything from SMB2 hence
why it's often handled by SMB2 code. You will see this in Samba,
Wireshark, Linux, and even Microsoft specification "MS-SMB2" which
actually covers both versions.
> 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156
> mismatch mid 11907
Could be a bug or miscalculated length + non critical warning, I also
see this on master kernel. Either way I doubt it's slowing everything down.
> 3) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/misc.c: Null buffer passed to
> cifs_small_buf_relea...
2020 Sep 25
1
cifsacl not working
...tu/+source/cifs-utils/+bug/1772148
Separately,
Enabling debug on the CIFS module, I do see the following (notice Can't
map SID messages):
ls -al '/path/to/cifsaclmount/test'
Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/inode.c: Getting info on \test
Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 190
length 192 mismatch mid 50
Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 124
length 128 mismatch mid 51
Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2ops.c: get smb3 acl for path
\test
Sep 25 12:32:02 pc-u20 kernel: fs/cifs/smb2ops.c: CIFS VFS: in
get_sm...
2020 Sep 25
2
cifsacl not working
On 9/25/20 5:14 AM, Aur?lien Aptel wrote:
> Ken Bass via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> writes:
>> Can you please expand on this, I am confused as to what you are
>> suggesting.? If 'getent pass' works properly and shows no
>> overlap/confusion, this seems to be related to cifsacl.
> It's still hard to say at this point.
>
> cifs.idmap logs
2019 Feb 16
0
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
>
> > 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156
> > mismatch mid 11907
>
> Could be a bug or miscalculated length + non critical warning, I also
> see this on master kernel. Either way I doubt it's slowing everything down.
>
Should I file a bug for this?
> ## OPERATION 1 - `ls debug....
2019 Feb 16
2
32 seconds vs 72 minutes -- expected performance difference?
On 16/02/2019 02:43, Saurabh Nanda via samba wrote:
>>> 2) Is this normal -- fs/cifs/smb2misc.c: Calculated size 157 length 156
>>> mismatch mid 11907
>> Could be a bug or miscalculated length + non critical warning, I also
>> see this on master kernel. Either way I doubt it's slowing everything down.
>>
> Should I file a bug for this?
>
>
>> ##...