On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Jonathan Johnson wrote: > OK, I don't have a strong understanding of oplocks, but I'm sure someone > will correct me where I go wrong.
Those interested in the whole OpLock story might benefit from reading chapter 14 'File and Record Locking" of: http://samba.org/~jht/NT4migration/Samba-HOWTO-Collection.html >From this coverage it should be obvious that file locking affects a complex interaction of Client and Server protocols and configuration settings. Please draw your own conclusions. - John T. > > Overgeneralization #1: Disabling oplocks is ALWAYS a safe thing to do. > > Overgeneralization #2: Oplocks provide a performance boost by allowing the > workstation (ws1) to cache a copy of the file locally and set an oplock. > This way, the ws1 can assume it has exclusive access and doesn't need to > read/write to/from the server for every operation. Occasionally, the ws1 > syncs the cached copy with the server copy. When another workstation (ws2) > requests access to the file, the server asks the ws1 to break the oplock. > Ws1 then syncs the cache with the server, and tells the server that it's > released the oplock. The server then tells ws2 it can access the file. If > ws1 has the file open for read (not write), ws2 can open the file for read > without breaking any oplocks. > > Overgeneraliztion #3: With oplocks disabled, the workstation must always ask > for an exclusive lock before writing to the file, and does not cache a copy. > Another workstation can't access the file until the first workstation > releases it. > > Exactly what goes on when things go wrong (server doesn't ask for oplock > break; workstation doesn't release oplock, etc.) I can't tell you. As for > the meaning of your errors, I haven't a clue. > > --Jon > > P.S. -- My philosophy is that if you ask a question and no one answers, tell > a lie as gospel truth and everyone will. > > On 20 Jun 2003, Mark Roach wrote: > > > I have been searching for info on this and haven't found an > > authoritative answer. From what I have read, oplocks are good because > > they increase connection speeds, but they are bad because they don't > > really work, but they actually do work, but they only work in some > > cases, etc etc. > > > > so, here's my problem and my question together: I get tons of these > > messages every day (over a thousand a day) > > > > [2003/06/20 08:19:42, 0] smbd/oplock.c:request_oplock_break(1011) > > request_oplock_break: no response received to oplock break request to > > pid 22335 on port 35010 for dev = 2b00, inode = 688540, file_id = 256210 > > [2003/06/20 08:19:42, 0] smbd/open.c:open_mode_check(652) open_mode_check: > > exlusive oplock left by process 22335 after break ! For file UHG/Local > > Settings/Temporary Internet Files/Content.IE5/desktop.ini, dev = 2b00, > > inode = 688540. Deleting it to continue... > > > > > > is this an indication that I should disable oplocks, or is disabling > > oplocks a foolish, unsafe thing to do, or is there just some other > > problem I need to fix to allow me to keep using oplocks? > > > > Very confused. > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > -- John H Terpstra Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba