> Can you compare this behaviour against NFS? In any case, the CIFS file- > system is the better option to 2000/XP servers. smbfs is simply older > code.
With NFS the same problem occurs. In /var/log/messages the following error shows up: "kernel: nfs: server 192.168.0.201 not responding, still trying" If I try to unmount the share, while the share isn't available the following message appears: "Cannot MOUNTPROG RPC: RPC: Error of Portmappers - RPC: Could not receive umount: /mnt: device is busy" A video played in xine from the remote share brings xine to freeze if the share is going down unexpectedly. You are right. I tried the CIFS already and this problem goes away. It shows a message that the remote filesystem isn't available any more. Seems that this protocol should be favoured in future. Client-Setup: --------------- ii nfs-common 1.0.7-3 ii nfs-kernel-server 1.0.7-3 Server-Setup: ---------------- ii nfs-common 1.0.7-3 ii nfs-kernel-server 1.0.7-3 Running NFS-Services: portmapper sgi_fam status nfs nlockmgr mountd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
