From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 9 20:19:36 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 26B0D106564A for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:19:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.248]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51228FC14 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:19:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b33so561247ana.13 for ; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.253.5 with SMTP id a5mr4363923ani.5.1213042775145; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.154.11 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:19:35 -0700 From: "Peter Wemm" To: "Garrett Cooper" In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0806091102k62637099qbaa73ca4d38ff64c@mail.gmail.com> 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: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:19:36 -0000 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.. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 "If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell