On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 08:16:11AM -0400, David Collier-Brown wrote: > > In the meantime, we're trying building an smbd with > spinlocks. Jeremy has cautioned us that This May Be Bad (;-))
Indeed :-). > So, let me ask some spinlock question: > 1) I know that if one process goes down holding a > spinlock, the lock will be non-removable. Will it be > removed if all smbds go down, and specifically if > they go down on a system crash, or are they persistent? The tdb file containing the spinlock will need to be removed. > 2) if they are persistent (they appear to be part of the tdb > data structure ???) can the system be brought down and then > recover/delete them? Yes. Only Samba needs to be taken down, not the system. > 3) will they be cleaned up if a client machine goes > down and the smbd discovers this via a keepalive? Yes, it's only the kill -9 nosave problem. > If we can find a workaround with acceptable behavior, > I'll recommend isolating this set of databases on a > single samba, dedicated to that task and using spinlocks. > This is still a workaround, but the production system > is at risk both ways... Yep - Solaris desparately needs a patch for this.... BTW: I ended up losing all email whilst I was away due to "unforseen problems" :-(. Anyone who sent me email and didn't get a response please resend. Jeremy.
