On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:54:13 +0100
> Björn JACKE wrote:
>
>> On 2013-02-28 at 07:26 -0800 Jeff Layton sent off:
>> > NTFS doesn't support sparse files, so the OS has to zero-fill up to the
>> > point where you're writing. That can take a l
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:54:13 +0100
Björn JACKE wrote:
> On 2013-02-28 at 07:26 -0800 Jeff Layton sent off:
> > NTFS doesn't support sparse files, so the OS has to zero-fill up to the
> > point where you're writing. That can take a long time on slow
> > storage (minutes even).
>
> but you are
On 2013-02-28 at 07:26 -0800 Jeff Layton sent off:
> NTFS doesn't support sparse files, so the OS has to zero-fill up to the
> point where you're writing. That can take a long time on slow
> storage (minutes even).
but you are talking about FAT here, right? NTFS does support sparse files if
th
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 11:31 -0600, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 10:47 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:36 -0600
> > Steve French wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:07 -0600
> >>> Dave Chiluk wrote:
> >>>
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:31:54 -0600
Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 10:47 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:36 -0600
> > Steve French wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:07 -0600
> >>> Dave Chiluk wrote:
> >>
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 10:47 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:36 -0600
>> Steve French wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:07 -0600
Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On
On 02/28/2013 10:47 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:36 -0600
> Steve French wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:07 -0600
>>> Dave Chiluk wrote:
>>>
On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:04:36 -0600
Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:07 -0600
> > Dave Chiluk wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
> >> > "Stefan (metze) Metzmac
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:07 -0600
> Dave Chiluk wrote:
>
>> On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
>> > "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Dave,
>> >>
>> >>> When messages are current
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:24:07 -0600
Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
> > "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >>> When messages are currently in queue awaiting a response, decrease amount
> >>> of
> >>>
..@lists.samba.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-c...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Decrease reconnection delay when switching nics
>
> Am 27.02.2013 17:34, schrieb Jeff Layton:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
> > "Stefan (metze) Metzma
French;
> linux-c...@vger.kernel.org; samba-techni...@lists.samba.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] CIFS: Decrease reconnection delay when switching nics
>
> On 02/27/2013 04:40 PM, Steve French wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Dave Chiluk
> wrote
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 16:44 -0600, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 04:40 PM, Steve French wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Dave Chiluk
> > wrote:
> >> On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
> >>> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> >>>
Am 27.02.2013 23:44, schrieb Dave Chiluk:
> On 02/27/2013 04:40 PM, Steve French wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Dave Chiluk
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>>>
Am 27.02.2013 17:34, schrieb Jeff Layton:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>>> When messages are currently in queue awaiting a response, decrease amount of
>>> time before attempting cifs_reconnect to SMB_MAX_RTT = 10 seconds. The
>>> cur
On 02/27/2013 04:40 PM, Steve French wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Dave Chiluk
> wrote:
>> On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
>>> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>>>
Hi Dave,
> When messages are currently in queue awaiti
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Dave Chiluk wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
>> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
When messages are currently in queue awaiting a response, decrease amount
of
time before
On 02/27/2013 10:34 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
> "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>>> When messages are currently in queue awaiting a response, decrease amount of
>>> time before attempting cifs_reconnect to SMB_MAX_RTT = 10 seconds. The
>>> cu
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:06:14 +0100
"Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> > When messages are currently in queue awaiting a response, decrease amount of
> > time before attempting cifs_reconnect to SMB_MAX_RTT = 10 seconds. The
> > current
> > wait time before attempting to reconnect
Hi Dave,
> When messages are currently in queue awaiting a response, decrease amount of
> time before attempting cifs_reconnect to SMB_MAX_RTT = 10 seconds. The current
> wait time before attempting to reconnect is currently 2*SMB_ECHO_INTERVAL(120
> seconds) since the last response was recieved.
20 matches
Mail list logo
