AnsweredAssumed Answered

Howcompliant is Alfresco's CIFS implementation ?

Question asked by alci on Nov 1, 2006
Latest reply on Nov 8, 2006 by alci

I'm having troubles with Cifs access to Alfresco using Linux 2.6.17 / Samba 3.0.22. Drive mounts ok, but browsing to certain directory suddenly result in a lot of network traffic and a repeated error on the client's console :

[17187997.646436] CIFS VFS: No response for cmd 50 mid 127

going over and over.

My first idea was to post on Samba's cifs linux client mailing list. They suggested running the smbtorture test suite (this test suite is designed to provide netbench fonctionnality with a small infrastracture) against Alfresco, and also dumping network traffic with Wireshark (aka Ethereal).

Smbtorture results in a lot of failed tests, but I am not a SMB protocol expert, nor really able to understand Wireshark's output.

So here is my question :
- do others encounter similar problems with Alfresco CIFS / Linux ?
- how compliant is Alfresco CIFS implementation supposed to be ?
- would anyone be interested in the smbtorture test results I got ?
- would anyone be able to help me with my tcpdump ?

Here is an example of failed tests (first 3 ones) :

Using seed 1162288172
starting attrib test
New file time is Sun May 17 22:26:48 1998
ERROR: SMBgetatr bug. time is Sun May 17 22:26:48 1998
Setting file time to Mon Oct 30 10:49:32 2006
Retrieved file time as Sun May 17 22:26:48 1998
ERROR: getatr/setatr bug. times are
Sun May 17 22:26:48 1998
Mon Oct 30 10:49:32 2006
attrib test finished
BASE-ATTR took 0.329789 secs

Starting charset tests
Testing composite character (a umlaut)
Testing naked diacritical (umlaut)
Testing partial surrogate
Conversion error: Illegal multibyte sequence()
Failed to convert UCS2 Name into unix - convert_string_talloc() failure
Failed to create partial surrogate 1 - NT_STATUS_NO_MEMORY
Testing wide-a
BASE-CHARSET took 1.24398 secs

starting chkpath test
Testing valid and invalid paths
BASE-CHKPATH took 0.885987 secs

Thanks in advance,