Hi Eric, Thank you for your response. I will read the white paper that you wrote.
I forgot to mention that in my smb.conf file for SAMBA 3.0.5, I have "blocking locks = no". Should I set this? Or should I use the default "blocking locks = yes"? I also curious about if it is safe to remove all files(including locking.tdb, brlok.tdb, etc.) under /var/.../locks directory after I stop samba server? I can see your point to disable oplocks, however, I am still wondering how this upgrade from 2.0.7 (nmbd -V showed 2.0.7, smbd -V showed 2.0.9, NOT 2.2.7) to 3.0.5 introduced oplock problem since we use the default settings for both versions of samba. Thank you very much for your help! Xiaoqin Qiu IT Infrastructure Services Organization Agilent Technologies, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: eric roseme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Samba] Exclusive oplock left by process Hi Xiaoqin, It appears to me that "oplock break wait time = 0" is the default on both 2.2 (2.2.10 for me) and 3.0 (3.0.2a for me). Unless you have a good reason for using oplocks, I suggest turning them off altogether ("oplocks = no", "level2 oplocks = no" - so testparm does not complain that level2 is on when oplocks are off). Also, if you have NFS users accessing the same files that are being oplocked, you could have some data integrity problems. You can look at a whitepaper I did about oplocks at: http://www.docs.hp.com/hpux/onlinedocs/4501/CIFS_Oplock_Guideline.pdf Eric Roseme Hewlett-Packard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > We have a HP-UX 11i server running as a samba server. Users use Windows 2000 boxes > with Service Pack 4 to connect to the samba server. Several days ago, we upgraded > samba server from 2.0.7 to 3.0.5, and we started to experience the following problem: > > The general connection and access to the samba server is ok. However, under the > samba share there have been some directories mounted from some other HP-UX 11i > servers through WAN. When people try to copy files from these directories or running > some applications using files under these directories, the windows > explorer/application kind of hang and became very slow. But this type of tasks were > successful using samba version 2.0.7. The problem only happened after the upgrade. > > I looked at the samba log file and found the following errors: > > [2004/08/24 18:07:51, 0] smbd/oplock.c:request_oplock_break(1023) > request_oplock_break: no response received to oplock break request to pid 27458 on > port 54926 for dev = 430016a8, inode = 3310429, file_id = 24 > [2004/08/24 18:07:51, 0] smbd/open.c:open_mode_check(680) > open_mode_check: exlusive oplock left by process 27458 after break ! For file > hped/sr/osclib_encode_def.atf, dev = 430016a8, inode = 3310429. Deleting it to > continue... > [2004/08/24 18:07:51, 0] smbd/open.c:open_mode_check(684) > open_mode_check: Existent process 27458 left active oplock. > > Our WAN connection is pretty fast although it is a lot slower than LAN. And in the > meantime, we had no problem accessing these directories using NFS. > > I read man pages and search the internet. Although there are sevel posts on the > internet describing similar problem, I havn't found any solution. >From the man > page, parameter "oplock break wait time" caught my eyes. We have been using default > value for both 2.0.7 and 3.0.5. However, the default value for this parameter seems > getting changed from "10" to "0" (if that was not a typo). And we use default values > for all oplock related parameters. > > Can I change this paramter to 10? The man page kind of made me be afraid of change > this value. Will this help? And any suggestion about our problem? > > Thank you very much for your help! > > Xiaoqin Qiu > IT Infrastructure Services Organization > Agilent Technologies, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
