Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:38:32PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > Does disabling "strict locking" cause a problem if one user is writing to the > file from the local host and another user is writing to NFS via the samba > share at the same time? That will mess up any coherence in the file, over NFS or CIFS unless the applications are written to respect each others locks. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
Does disabling "strict locking" cause a problem if one user is writing to the file from the local host and another user is writing to NFS via the samba share at the same time? -Original Message- From: samba-boun...@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-boun...@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Allison Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 6:57 PM To: Volker Lendecke Cc: 'samba@lists.samba.org'; Jeremy Allison Subject: Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 08:29:03AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:44:17PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:39:18PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > > > No other process is accessing it. So any idea why it would work fine > > > without > > > "strict locking = no" in previous kernels below 2.6.36.3? > > > > When "strict locking = yes" we make fcntl() locking query calls > > to make sure we're safe against existing POSIX locks. > > > > The NFS locking code is probably just broken. > > I think you're talking about "posix locking = yes/no". Well yeah, but "strict locking" will map onto posix locks underneath if "posix locking = yes", which it is by default. So I still think it's the underlying POSIX locking on NFS that's probably broken and causing this :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba --- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. --- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 08:29:03AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:44:17PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:39:18PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > > > No other process is accessing it. So any idea why it would work fine > > > without > > > "strict locking = no" in previous kernels below 2.6.36.3? > > > > When "strict locking = yes" we make fcntl() locking query calls > > to make sure we're safe against existing POSIX locks. > > > > The NFS locking code is probably just broken. > > I think you're talking about "posix locking = yes/no". Well yeah, but "strict locking" will map onto posix locks underneath if "posix locking = yes", which it is by default. So I still think it's the underlying POSIX locking on NFS that's probably broken and causing this :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:44:17PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:39:18PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > > No other process is accessing it. So any idea why it would work fine without > > "strict locking = no" in previous kernels below 2.6.36.3? > > When "strict locking = yes" we make fcntl() locking query calls > to make sure we're safe against existing POSIX locks. > > The NFS locking code is probably just broken. I think you're talking about "posix locking = yes/no". Volker -- SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen phone: +49-551-37-0, fax: +49-551-37-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 04:39:18PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > No other process is accessing it. So any idea why it would work fine without > "strict locking = no" in previous kernels below 2.6.36.3? When "strict locking = yes" we make fcntl() locking query calls to make sure we're safe against existing POSIX locks. The NFS locking code is probably just broken. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
No other process is accessing it. So any idea why it would work fine without "strict locking = no" in previous kernels below 2.6.36.3? -Original Message- From: Jeremy Allison [j...@samba.org<mailto:j...@samba.org>] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 03:09 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Philip Ong Cc: 'Jeremy Allison'; 'samba@lists.samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:48:52AM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > > Hope this helps. > [Philip Ong] Thanks, yes, it does. I'm having a problem with being able to > copy a local > Windows file to NFS area shared by samba on WinXP. If I set "strict locking = > no", I'm > able to copy the file to the NFS area shared via samba. This seems to only > happen when > upgrading from a kernel.org kernel of 2.6.36.3 and higher. I've tried on > Centos 4.5 and > 5.6 and all seems to point to either kernel or samba mix (3.5.11 and 3.6). > I'd like to > know the damage setting "strict locking = no" could possibly cause especially > since I'm > not sure if I'd want to ignore mandatory locks. Is this going to be a big > problem? What > are considered mandatory locks? Actually you probably do want to ignore mandatory locks :-). Is there another process accessing this file at the same time ? If there is, and that process has taken a POSIX/NFS lock out on the file, then "strict locking = yes" will conflict. More likely it's just an NFS bug in the locking code though :-). Jeremy. --- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. --- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:48:52AM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > > Hope this helps. > [Philip Ong] Thanks, yes, it does. I'm having a problem with being able to > copy a local > Windows file to NFS area shared by samba on WinXP. If I set "strict locking = > no", I'm > able to copy the file to the NFS area shared via samba. This seems to only > happen when > upgrading from a kernel.org kernel of 2.6.36.3 and higher. I've tried on > Centos 4.5 and > 5.6 and all seems to point to either kernel or samba mix (3.5.11 and 3.6). > I'd like to > know the damage setting "strict locking = no" could possibly cause especially > since I'm > not sure if I'd want to ignore mandatory locks. Is this going to be a big > problem? What > are considered mandatory locks? Actually you probably do want to ignore mandatory locks :-). Is there another process accessing this file at the same time ? If there is, and that process has taken a POSIX/NFS lock out on the file, then "strict locking = yes" will conflict. More likely it's just an NFS bug in the locking code though :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
-Original Message- From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 11:31 AM To: Philip Ong Cc: 'samba@lists.samba.org' Subject: Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:28:43AM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > 1) Does "strict locking = no" negate "kernel oplocks = yes" ? No. > 2) What's the difference between the two? One controls kernel oplocks, the other one controls whether smbd checks SMB/SMB2/CIFS read/write requests against existing mandatory locks. [Philip Ong] What are the repercussions of having "strict locking = no" or scenarios where this might be a problem? > 3) What a good way to test if a file got a lock seen from the linux side and > the windows side? cat /proc/locks On windows, write a Win32 program. > 4) If a file has a lock, does that mean you can still open the file in linux > or in windows, but can't write to it? A lock from who ? CIFS/NFS/local process ?[Philip Ong] A lock from kernel if on NFS. > Any clarification between the two would be helpful. Hope this helps. [Philip Ong] Thanks, yes, it does. I'm having a problem with being able to copy a local Windows file to NFS area shared by samba on WinXP. If I set "strict locking = no", I'm able to copy the file to the NFS area shared via samba. This seems to only happen when upgrading from a kernel.org kernel of 2.6.36.3 and higher. I've tried on Centos 4.5 and 5.6 and all seems to point to either kernel or samba mix (3.5.11 and 3.6). I'd like to know the damage setting "strict locking = no" could possibly cause especially since I'm not sure if I'd want to ignore mandatory locks. Is this going to be a big problem? What are considered mandatory locks? Thanks, Phil --- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. --- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:28:43AM -0700, Philip Ong wrote: > 1) Does "strict locking = no" negate "kernel oplocks = yes" ? No. > 2) What's the difference between the two? One controls kernel oplocks, the other one controls whether smbd checks SMB/SMB2/CIFS read/write requests against existing mandatory locks. > 3) What a good way to test if a file got a lock seen from the linux side and > the windows side? cat /proc/locks On windows, write a Win32 program. > 4) If a file has a lock, does that mean you can still open the file in linux > or in windows, but can't write to it? A lock from who ? CIFS/NFS/local process ? > Any clarification between the two would be helpful. Hope this helps. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] strict locking and kernel oplocks in the smb.conf
1) Does "strict locking = no" negate "kernel oplocks = yes" ? 2) What's the difference between the two? 3) What a good way to test if a file got a lock seen from the linux side and the windows side? 4) If a file has a lock, does that mean you can still open the file in linux or in windows, but can't write to it? Any clarification between the two would be helpful. --- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. --- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
