Bug 80023 – Slow write for mounted SMBFS

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE

[Description MikeM 2005-01-29 21:26:52 UTC]

When using a mounted SMBFS I experience very slow write times.  Writing a file to a mounted Samba share from the client will take 30 seconds.  In the logs of the client Gentoo machine trying to write to the share I see...

  smb_refresh_inode: samba_share/test changed mode, 0100660 to 0040770
  smb_delete_dentry: bad inode, unhashing samba_share/test
  smb_trans2: invalid data, disp=0, cnt=0, tot=0, ofs=0
  smb_add_request: request [d398fea0, mid=9535] timed out!

The Gentoo machine running Samba shows no corresponding errors.

If I instead use Nautilus and connect using the smb:// command everything works at normal speed with no errors.  I have also checked access to my Samba server from WinXP and it is working fine too.  This is a new problem, Samba has worked a long time before this without a hitch. 

I am using CK kernel sources 2.6.10-ck2 on the client with SMBFS compiled into the kernel.  The server side is running Samba 3.0.7

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Mount Samba share
2. time touch samba_share/test
3. 

Actual Results:  
Output at the command line on client:
  time touch samba_share/test
  touch: setting times of `public/Pictures/test': Input/output error

  real    0m29.998s
  user    0m0.001s
  sys     0m0.002s

From kern.log on client side:
  smb_refresh_inode: samba_share/test changed mode, 0100660 to 0040770
  smb_delete_dentry: bad inode, unhashing samba_share/test
  smb_trans2: invalid data, disp=0, cnt=0, tot=0, ofs=0
  smb_add_request: request [d398fea0, mid=9535] timed out!

Nothing in logs on server side.

[Comment 1 Robin Johnson 2005-01-29 22:43:21 UTC]

Since you note "This is a new problem, Samba has worked a long time before this without a hitch."

What did you change between it working and it not been right?
kernel?
samba?

[Comment 2 Ulrich Plate (RETIRED) 2005-01-30 04:16:00 UTC]

Looking at the symptoms I'd say it's a kernel problem, and in all likelihood a duplicate one at that. Check bug #72968.

[Comment 3 MikeM 2005-01-30 07:32:39 UTC]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 72968 ***