Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This question already has an answer here:

I have read this similar question but did not find an appropriate reply, hence I am posting this question.

I have a scenario where my Windows client is an anti-virus server. To reproduce a bug, I need to hold the client side CIFS request by introducing some delay of 5-10 sec.

Can anyone tell me how I can do this?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007, soandos, Mokubai, Excellll, Darth Android Jul 12 '13 at 1:24

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question.

My crystal ball sent me to ask you: What protocol are you talking about? :) – Alois Mahdal Jul 8 '13 at 19:01
CIFS protocol ... – Rahul anand Jul 8 '13 at 19:23
thanks for the possible solution but seems none of them answer my query. – Rahul anand Jul 8 '13 at 19:26
@Rahulanand: Then edit your question to focus on what exactly you want to know. How can people guess that your inability to implement soandos' proxy routing suggestion is the real issue here? – Karan Jul 8 '13 at 22:43

I'm not sure if for CIFS, but if it was HTTP, I would write a simple CGI script.

In theory, the same approach could be used with CIFS, but even the most simple scenario (in terms as how the request should look? Does it need to be authorized properly?) might be pretty complicated to program. The answers you refer seem easier to me...

share|improve this answer

Maybe another approach, to avoid scripting of CIFS client: Somehow set up a "proper" CIFS so that client will "believe" it and make it use resource from a virtual filesystem that uses HTTP as an underlying protocol. (I'm thinking about something based on fuse might exist?)

Then just go for the simple CGI script.

share|improve this answer
I don't see how these answers are so radically different that you couldn't have merged them. – Karan Jul 8 '13 at 22:46
@Karan I don't see how merging answers is beneficial in the first place. – Alois Mahdal Jul 8 '13 at 22:48
In general I follow Jeff's advice. The only time IMO multiple answers by the same person makes sense is if they approach the problem from completely different directions. Otherwise it's bound to be seen as a means to garner extra votes. A comprehensive canonical answer is always preferable. – Karan Jul 8 '13 at 22:57

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.