From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 10 01:53:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82063106564A for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:53:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.154]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029288FC24 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:53:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so1994975fgb.35 for ; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:53:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=w7hztflrt/UjXnzEhQcXZO5LtJcLEHvrXtJbT5BOYA8=; b=TbNoEZRYPAHGgrNQqCR5XB3UZGa86jw/6hrjYjd1GlX6iA21koslZ0p9pqiuw705Zz v5t3jvfSzEdwQr0wC1dSFKbkaNBUEZ69rwbBGG083d3w++0KLK8Blc/qbhzvLXCkgo51 cv2H3vLINBMs6TgQ1VFZFnaAdxhE8+MMNieWk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=WVUSStTIB5cBCojf5EmCk38rEFrBcq0kDAMiGw+67bMnJfaCFLGcBKfQ/7HKP9ZkAf 7obomTA0mhHaNW21GhQoTLjnMscKTGki9HFFwHKMb/B/BUxsM/wyWqLnqGHZp9pfQpHU KcvM7GnU8hSsej62KijmC4APoStue3P4b4xNI= Received: by 10.86.9.8 with SMTP id 8mr5017014fgi.22.1213062806784; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.26.8 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0806091853w2d5a5587i622790f65eba4734@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:53:26 -0700 From: "Garrett Cooper" To: "Peter Wemm" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7d6fde3d0806091102k62637099qbaa73ca4d38ff64c@mail.gmail.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Moving from smbfs to cifs X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:53:28 -0000 On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Hello all, >> I was wondering if there's been any serious thought put into >> migrating from smbfs (unmaintained project in kernel / userland since >> 2001) to cifs (currently supported Samba project). This is the >> mount_smbfs user tool that's available in userland. >> There are some related questions about this and observations >> that I've made: >> Pros: >> 1. cifs is the successor to smbfs, which is good from a >> performance and feature enhancement end. >> 2. It's supported, which means that any bugs in the code can >> be filed upstream and we'll be helped. This is an important point as I >> appear to be hard locking up my system with some kind of non-MPSAFE >> issue at kernel level on a very fresh copy of -CURRENT. >> >> Cons: >> 1. cifs is currently Linux centric (it currently uses quite a >> few Linux calls and references the Linux module code base); that will >> need to be fixed. >> 2. It's GPL v2 licensed, which means that more GPL code will >> "infect" the kernel, whereas smbfs was in a more BSD-like license >> format. >> >> So, my question would be "do the pros outweigh the cons for >> attempting to migrate from smbfs to cifs in the kernel?" >> Thanks, >> -Garrett > > I was surprised to discover that smbfs works as well as it does. I > really was expecting a whole pile of panics, lockups etc, but for my > usage level, it seems to just work. On my smp desktop: > > peter@overcee[1:16pm]~/fbp4/hammer/sys/dev/twa-193> mount | grep smbfs | wc -l > 5 > peter@overcee[1:17pm]~/fbp4/hammer/sys/dev/twa-194> uptime > 1:17PM up 49 days, 21:46, 6 users, load averages: 0.29, 0.26, 0.17 > > Maybe it'll all catch fire tomorrow.. Well, I wish I had your luck Peter. Every time I try and mount my admin share on my Vista box (for testing purposes only now), the mount_smbfs proc locks up the kernel with a strange recursive lock error (I think that's what causes it at least; I can't attach kgdb or core dump the machine... yet... I'm going to go ahead and force a panic today to see what data's hanging out in the kernel). This is all with a kernel / userland newly synced and rebuilt as of last Thursday with a clean /usr/obj :(... That's part of the reason why I was asking about migrating to cifs. Besides, we'd probably see a performance boost moving to cifs at some degree because it's more supported by the microsoft folks now and they were having issues with performance and SMB (at least prior to Vista SP1). Just a few thoughts... -Garrett