Re: [Samba] oplocks for Access DB

2013-09-05 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 11:07:17AM +1200, sond wrote:
> [DB_BE]
> path = /home/DATA2/DB_BE
> write list = +db-users
> force group = +db-users
> force create mode = 0770
> force directory mode = 0770
> oplocks = no
> level2 oplocks = no
> veto oplock files = /*.mdb/

With oplocks=no you don't need the other two.

> Any suggestions to improve this config would be welcome.

Well, the only suggestion is to use a real database engine.
Sorry, but a shared file multi-user database is just a very,
very bad idea both performance- and integritywise.

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
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kont...@sernet.de

*
visit us on it-sa:IT security exhibitions in Nürnberg, Germany
October 8th - 10th 2013, hall 12, booth 333
free tickets available via code 270691 on: www.it-sa.de/gutschein
**
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks for Access DB

2013-09-04 Thread sond 

On 03/09/13 21:22, Volker Lendecke wrote:

Hi!

On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:10:18AM +1200, sond wrote:

Hi Folks

First time poster here..

I have a Samba 3.4.7 ( will upgrade soon ) in a workgroup enviroment,
This server has a share containing various Access DB backends..

Wondering about the .ldb lock files that the client front-ends
produce.. and if the oplocks and veto options are still current ?
as various combinations i have tried don't seem to work..

Would be keen to hear how others handle Access back ends on Samba shares..

We believe that we handle oplocks and the real locks
correctly. But as those files are typically shared, oplocks
are usually lost quickly. So it should be okay to not grant
oplock files at all on those shared files.

What fails exactly?

With best regards,

Volker Lendecke


Hi

I did keep seeing .ldb lock files in the share containing the Access DB 
back-ends
and am not sure if this is desirable or not in terms of optimisation and 
integrity..


However.. I have noticed an error in my smb.conf for the share that 
testparm didn't notify me of..


I had:

veto oplock files = /*.mdb

which I think should actually be:

veto oplock files = /*.mdb/

..so my current config for the share is now:

## -- Access back ends are here 
[DB_BE]
path = /home/DATA2/DB_BE
write list = +db-users
force group = +db-users
force create mode = 0770
force directory mode = 0770
oplocks = no
level2 oplocks = no
veto oplock files = /*.mdb/
guest ok = no
printable = no
browseable = no
## ---

Any suggestions to improve this config would be welcome.

Cheers

sond

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks for Access DB

2013-09-03 Thread Volker Lendecke 
Hi!

On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:10:18AM +1200, sond wrote:
> Hi Folks
> 
> First time poster here..
> 
> I have a Samba 3.4.7 ( will upgrade soon ) in a workgroup enviroment,
> This server has a share containing various Access DB backends..
> 
> Wondering about the .ldb lock files that the client front-ends
> produce.. and if the oplocks and veto options are still current ?
> as various combinations i have tried don't seem to work..
> 
> Would be keen to hear how others handle Access back ends on Samba shares..

We believe that we handle oplocks and the real locks
correctly. But as those files are typically shared, oplocks
are usually lost quickly. So it should be okay to not grant
oplock files at all on those shared files.

What fails exactly?

With best regards,

Volker Lendecke

-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-37-0, fax: +49-551-37-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kont...@sernet.de

*
visit us on it-sa:IT security exhibitions in Nürnberg, Germany
October 8th - 10th 2013, hall 12, booth 333
free tickets available via code 270691 on: www.it-sa.de/gutschein
**
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-12-19 Thread Joschi Brauchle 

I reported the issue here:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8670

Please find level-10 logs and strace there.

Best regards,
Joschi Brauchle

On 12/19/2011 10:57 AM, Volker Lendecke wrote:

Hi!

More interesting would be a debug level 10 logfile together
with a "strace -ttT -o /tmp/smbd.strace -p" on
the smbd relevant for the client.

Volker

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 06:44:10PM +0100, Joschi Brauchle wrote:

Hello everyone,

I would like to follow up on the thread "[Samba] oplocks issue when
trying to copy file", which I found while googling for a problem.

We have the same setup and problem mentioned in that thread:
Our Samba server (version 3.5.12) exports a share that was mounted
via NFS from another machine. We are using SUSE Linux Enterprise and
this setup used to work with "kernel oplocks = yes" in SLES10, but
not in SLES11SP1.

I did some research and found that the kernel commit
http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel/commit/?h=SLE11-SP1&id=dd143426eaaadea159c8dd2d3c9ff5e9da94bcfd
mentioned in this thread is included in SLES11SP1 kernel 2.6.32.29.

So I downgraded to SLES11SP1 2.6.32.12 on a test-machine and can
confirm that the problem goes away with kernel oplocks turned on!

As a workaround, one can disable kernel oplocks or use the "-o
nolock" option when mounting via NFS.

I guess this kernel regression should be reported to Novell. I can
provide the samba-level-10 logfiles for 2.6.32.12 (working) and
2.6.32.29 (not working).

Best regards,   
--
Dipl.-Ing. Joschi Brauchle, M.Sc.

Institute for Communications Engineering (LNT)
Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM)
80290 Munich, Germany

Tel (work): +49 89 289-23474
Fax (work): +49 89 289-23490
E-mail: joschi.brauc...@tum.de
Web: http://www.lnt.ei.tum.de/





--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba





--
Dipl.-Ing. Joschi Brauchle, M.Sc.

Institute for Communications Engineering (LNT)
Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM)
80290 Munich, Germany

Tel (work): +49 89 289-23474
Fax (work): +49 89 289-23490
E-mail: joschi.brauc...@tum.de
Web: http://www.lnt.ei.tum.de/

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-12-19 Thread Volker Lendecke 
Hi!

More interesting would be a debug level 10 logfile together
with a "strace -ttT -o /tmp/smbd.strace -p " on
the smbd relevant for the client.

Volker

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 06:44:10PM +0100, Joschi Brauchle wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I would like to follow up on the thread "[Samba] oplocks issue when
> trying to copy file", which I found while googling for a problem.
> 
> We have the same setup and problem mentioned in that thread:
> Our Samba server (version 3.5.12) exports a share that was mounted
> via NFS from another machine. We are using SUSE Linux Enterprise and
> this setup used to work with "kernel oplocks = yes" in SLES10, but
> not in SLES11SP1.
> 
> I did some research and found that the kernel commit
> http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel/commit/?h=SLE11-SP1&id=dd143426eaaadea159c8dd2d3c9ff5e9da94bcfd
> mentioned in this thread is included in SLES11SP1 kernel 2.6.32.29.
> 
> So I downgraded to SLES11SP1 2.6.32.12 on a test-machine and can
> confirm that the problem goes away with kernel oplocks turned on!
> 
> As a workaround, one can disable kernel oplocks or use the "-o
> nolock" option when mounting via NFS.
> 
> I guess this kernel regression should be reported to Novell. I can
> provide the samba-level-10 logfiles for 2.6.32.12 (working) and
> 2.6.32.29 (not working).
> 
> Best regards, 
> -- 
> Dipl.-Ing. Joschi Brauchle, M.Sc.
> 
> Institute for Communications Engineering (LNT)
> Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM)
> 80290 Munich, Germany
> 
> Tel (work): +49 89 289-23474
> Fax (work): +49 89 289-23490
> E-mail: joschi.brauc...@tum.de
> Web: http://www.lnt.ei.tum.de/
> 


> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba


-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-37-0, fax: +49-551-37-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kont...@sernet.de
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-10-24 Thread Philip Ong 
I don't have a linux vendor. We compile kernel.org kernel on top of Centos 5.x. 
kernel.org is still under construction so I'm not able to submit a bug. Any 
other suggestions?

-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Allison [mailto:j...@samba.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Jeremy Allison
Cc: Philip Ong; 'samba@lists.samba.org'
Subject: Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:35:01PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:33:32PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote:
> > I've narrowed this problem down to a patch that is applied in 2.6.36.3. I 
> > replaced file.c from 2.6.36.2 into 2.6.36.3 and Samba works fine. The 
> > problem is I'm not sure if Samba needs to be fixed or the kernel needs to 
> > be. Anyone know what the right action is? One thing I noticed was the 
> > invalid argument being sent in the debugging log.
> > 
> > "  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, 
> > fd = 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)"
> > 
> > Any advice would help.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> > 
> > 
> > The commit 129a84de2347002f09721cda3155ccfd19fade40 (locks: fix F_GETLK
> > regression (failure to find conflicts)) fixed the posix_test_lock()
> > function by itself, however, its usage in NFS changed by the commit
> > 9d6a8c5c213e34c475e72b245a8eb709258e968c (locks: give posix_test_lock
> > same interface as ->lock) remained broken - subsequent NFS-specific
> > locking code received F_UNLCK instead of the user-specified lock type.
> > To fix the problem, fl->fl_type needs to be saved before the
> > posix_test_lock() call and restored if no local conflicts were reported.
> 
> Looking closer at the problem...
> 
> We simply call fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, leasetype) on a fd to
> get a kernel oplock on it.
> 
> int leasetype can be F_WRLCK or F_UNLCK (from Samba). This
> matches the fcntl F_SETLEASE documentation completely. There
> has been no change whatsoever in Samba in this regard.
> 
> So I'm definitely calling kernel regression bug on this one.

FYI. Can you help me by logging a bug with your Linux
vendor on this one so we can get this fixed please ?

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] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-10-24 Thread Jeremy Allison 
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:35:01PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:33:32PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote:
> > I've narrowed this problem down to a patch that is applied in 2.6.36.3. I 
> > replaced file.c from 2.6.36.2 into 2.6.36.3 and Samba works fine. The 
> > problem is I'm not sure if Samba needs to be fixed or the kernel needs to 
> > be. Anyone know what the right action is? One thing I noticed was the 
> > invalid argument being sent in the debugging log.
> > 
> > "  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, 
> > fd = 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)"
> > 
> > Any advice would help.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> > 
> > 
> > The commit 129a84de2347002f09721cda3155ccfd19fade40 (locks: fix F_GETLK
> > regression (failure to find conflicts)) fixed the posix_test_lock()
> > function by itself, however, its usage in NFS changed by the commit
> > 9d6a8c5c213e34c475e72b245a8eb709258e968c (locks: give posix_test_lock
> > same interface as ->lock) remained broken - subsequent NFS-specific
> > locking code received F_UNLCK instead of the user-specified lock type.
> > To fix the problem, fl->fl_type needs to be saved before the
> > posix_test_lock() call and restored if no local conflicts were reported.
> 
> Looking closer at the problem...
> 
> We simply call fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, leasetype) on a fd to
> get a kernel oplock on it.
> 
> int leasetype can be F_WRLCK or F_UNLCK (from Samba). This
> matches the fcntl F_SETLEASE documentation completely. There
> has been no change whatsoever in Samba in this regard.
> 
> So I'm definitely calling kernel regression bug on this one.

FYI. Can you help me by logging a bug with your Linux
vendor on this one so we can get this fixed please ?

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-10-24 Thread Jeremy Allison 
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:33:32PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote:
> I've narrowed this problem down to a patch that is applied in 2.6.36.3. I 
> replaced file.c from 2.6.36.2 into 2.6.36.3 and Samba works fine. The problem 
> is I'm not sure if Samba needs to be fixed or the kernel needs to be. Anyone 
> know what the right action is? One thing I noticed was the invalid argument 
> being sent in the debugging log.
> 
> "  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd 
> = 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)"
> 
> Any advice would help.
> 
> Thanks,
> Phil
> 
> 
> The commit 129a84de2347002f09721cda3155ccfd19fade40 (locks: fix F_GETLK
> regression (failure to find conflicts)) fixed the posix_test_lock()
> function by itself, however, its usage in NFS changed by the commit
> 9d6a8c5c213e34c475e72b245a8eb709258e968c (locks: give posix_test_lock
> same interface as ->lock) remained broken - subsequent NFS-specific
> locking code received F_UNLCK instead of the user-specified lock type.
> To fix the problem, fl->fl_type needs to be saved before the
> posix_test_lock() call and restored if no local conflicts were reported.

Looking closer at the problem...

We simply call fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, leasetype) on a fd to
get a kernel oplock on it.

int leasetype can be F_WRLCK or F_UNLCK (from Samba). This
matches the fcntl F_SETLEASE documentation completely. There
has been no change whatsoever in Samba in this regard.

So I'm definitely calling kernel regression bug on this one.

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-10-24 Thread Jeremy Allison 
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Philip Ong wrote:
> I also tried 3.6.1 and it still has the issue
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Wood [mailto:esiot...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:09 AM
> To: Philip Ong
> Cc: samba@lists.samba.org; samba-techni...@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file
> 
> Try the samba-technical list.
> 
> On 20 October 2011 08:33, Philip Ong  wrote:
> > I've narrowed this problem down to a patch that is applied in 2.6.36.3. I 
> > replaced file.c from 2.6.36.2 into 2.6.36.3 and Samba works fine. The 
> > problem is I'm not sure if Samba needs to be fixed or the kernel needs to 
> > be. Anyone know what the right action is? One thing I noticed was the 
> > invalid argument being sent in the debugging log.
> >
> > "  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, 
> > fd = 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)"
> >
> > Any advice would help.

Hmmm. As the Samba code hasn't changed here w.r.t. requesting
kernel oplocks it looks like a kernel regression to me.

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-10-21 Thread Philip Ong 
I also tried 3.6.1 and it still has the issue

-Original Message-
From: Michael Wood [mailto:esiot...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:09 AM
To: Philip Ong
Cc: samba@lists.samba.org; samba-techni...@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

Try the samba-technical list.

On 20 October 2011 08:33, Philip Ong  wrote:
> I've narrowed this problem down to a patch that is applied in 2.6.36.3. I 
> replaced file.c from 2.6.36.2 into 2.6.36.3 and Samba works fine. The problem 
> is I'm not sure if Samba needs to be fixed or the kernel needs to be. Anyone 
> know what the right action is? One thing I noticed was the invalid argument 
> being sent in the debugging log.
>
> "  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd 
> = 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)"
>
> Any advice would help.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
> The commit 129a84de2347002f09721cda3155ccfd19fade40 (locks: fix F_GETLK
> regression (failure to find conflicts)) fixed the posix_test_lock()
> function by itself, however, its usage in NFS changed by the commit
> 9d6a8c5c213e34c475e72b245a8eb709258e968c (locks: give posix_test_lock
> same interface as ->lock) remained broken - subsequent NFS-specific
> locking code received F_UNLCK instead of the user-specified lock type.
> To fix the problem, fl->fl_type needs to be saved before the
> posix_test_lock() call and restored if no local conflicts were reported.
>
> Reference: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23892
> Tested-by: Alexander Morozov 
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov 
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust 
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman 
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen 
>
> ---
> fs/nfs/file.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.35.y/fs/nfs/file.c
> ===
> --- linux-2.6.35.y.orig/fs/nfs/file.c
> +++ linux-2.6.35.y/fs/nfs/file.c
> @@ -696,6 +696,7 @@ static int do_getlk(struct file *filp, i
> {
> struct inode *inode = filp->f_mapping->host;
> int status = 0;
> +       unsigned int saved_type = fl->fl_type;
>
> /* Try local locking first */
> posix_test_lock(filp, fl);
> @@ -703,6 +704,7 @@ static int do_getlk(struct file *filp, i
> /* found a conflict */
> goto out;
> }
> +       fl->fl_type = saved_type;
>
> if (nfs_have_delegation(inode, FMODE_READ))
> goto out_noconflict;
> --
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Ong
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:41 PM
> To: samba@lists.samba.org
> Cc: Philip Ong
> Subject: oplocks issue when trying to copy file
>
> I'm not sure if this a Kernel/samba or NFS issue. We run this on Centos 5.6 
> using a kernel.org kernel.
>
> Please find below the problem description
>
> When trying to copy a file to a samba share which has NFS backend on 2.6.36.3 
> or newer Linux kernel following message is displayed on windows client
>
> "An unexpected error is keeping you from copying the file. If you continue to 
> receive this error, you can use the error code to search for help with this 
> problem.
> Error 0x80070021: The process cannot access the file because another process 
> has locked a portion of the file"
>
> I am able to delete a file within the same directory structure. I am also 
> able to create a file or folder by right-clicking within Windows Explorer on 
> XP. Below are the logs generated by samba in debug mode. The main line of 
> interest was:
>
>  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd = 
> 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)
>
>
> Please note "test.cfg" was the file which we were trying to copy from windows
>
>  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128330, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
> [/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128339,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128348, 10] smbd/open.c:3414(create_file_default)
>  create_file: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, share_access = 
> 0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock_request
> = 0x3 root_dir_fid = 0x0, ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = 
> home/foo/open/test.cfg
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128359,  3] smbd/vfs.c:881(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128377, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
> [/home/f

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-10-21 Thread Michael Wood 
Try the samba-technical list.

On 20 October 2011 08:33, Philip Ong  wrote:
> I've narrowed this problem down to a patch that is applied in 2.6.36.3. I 
> replaced file.c from 2.6.36.2 into 2.6.36.3 and Samba works fine. The problem 
> is I'm not sure if Samba needs to be fixed or the kernel needs to be. Anyone 
> know what the right action is? One thing I noticed was the invalid argument 
> being sent in the debugging log.
>
> "  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd 
> = 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)"
>
> Any advice would help.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
>
> The commit 129a84de2347002f09721cda3155ccfd19fade40 (locks: fix F_GETLK
> regression (failure to find conflicts)) fixed the posix_test_lock()
> function by itself, however, its usage in NFS changed by the commit
> 9d6a8c5c213e34c475e72b245a8eb709258e968c (locks: give posix_test_lock
> same interface as ->lock) remained broken - subsequent NFS-specific
> locking code received F_UNLCK instead of the user-specified lock type.
> To fix the problem, fl->fl_type needs to be saved before the
> posix_test_lock() call and restored if no local conflicts were reported.
>
> Reference: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23892
> Tested-by: Alexander Morozov 
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov 
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust 
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman 
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen 
>
> ---
> fs/nfs/file.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.35.y/fs/nfs/file.c
> ===
> --- linux-2.6.35.y.orig/fs/nfs/file.c
> +++ linux-2.6.35.y/fs/nfs/file.c
> @@ -696,6 +696,7 @@ static int do_getlk(struct file *filp, i
> {
> struct inode *inode = filp->f_mapping->host;
> int status = 0;
> +       unsigned int saved_type = fl->fl_type;
>
> /* Try local locking first */
> posix_test_lock(filp, fl);
> @@ -703,6 +704,7 @@ static int do_getlk(struct file *filp, i
> /* found a conflict */
> goto out;
> }
> +       fl->fl_type = saved_type;
>
> if (nfs_have_delegation(inode, FMODE_READ))
> goto out_noconflict;
> --
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Ong
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:41 PM
> To: samba@lists.samba.org
> Cc: Philip Ong
> Subject: oplocks issue when trying to copy file
>
> I'm not sure if this a Kernel/samba or NFS issue. We run this on Centos 5.6 
> using a kernel.org kernel.
>
> Please find below the problem description
>
> When trying to copy a file to a samba share which has NFS backend on 2.6.36.3 
> or newer Linux kernel following message is displayed on windows client
>
> "An unexpected error is keeping you from copying the file. If you continue to 
> receive this error, you can use the error code to search for help with this 
> problem.
> Error 0x80070021: The process cannot access the file because another process 
> has locked a portion of the file"
>
> I am able to delete a file within the same directory structure. I am also 
> able to create a file or folder by right-clicking within Windows Explorer on 
> XP. Below are the logs generated by samba in debug mode. The main line of 
> interest was:
>
>  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd = 
> 33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)
>
>
> Please note "test.cfg" was the file which we were trying to copy from windows
>
>  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128330, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
> [/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128339,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128348, 10] smbd/open.c:3414(create_file_default)
>  create_file: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, share_access = 
> 0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock_request
> = 0x3 root_dir_fid = 0x0, ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = 
> home/foo/open/test.cfg
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128359,  3] smbd/vfs.c:881(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128377, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
> [/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128386,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
>  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128394, 10] smbd/open.c:2941(create_file_unixpath)
>  create_file_unixpath: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, 
> share_access = 0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock
> _request = 0x3 ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = home/foo/open/test.cfg
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128406,  5] smbd/files.c:119(file_new)
>  allocated file structure 14342, fnum = 18438 (4 used)
> [2011/09/27 17:41:41.128416,  3] smbd/dosmode.c:166(unix_mode)
>  unix_mode(home/foo/open/

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-10-19 Thread Philip Ong 
I've narrowed this problem down to a patch that is applied in 2.6.36.3. I 
replaced file.c from 2.6.36.2 into 2.6.36.3 and Samba works fine. The problem 
is I'm not sure if Samba needs to be fixed or the kernel needs to be. Anyone 
know what the right action is? One thing I noticed was the invalid argument 
being sent in the debugging log.

"  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd = 
33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)"

Any advice would help.

Thanks,
Phil


The commit 129a84de2347002f09721cda3155ccfd19fade40 (locks: fix F_GETLK
regression (failure to find conflicts)) fixed the posix_test_lock()
function by itself, however, its usage in NFS changed by the commit
9d6a8c5c213e34c475e72b245a8eb709258e968c (locks: give posix_test_lock
same interface as ->lock) remained broken - subsequent NFS-specific
locking code received F_UNLCK instead of the user-specified lock type.
To fix the problem, fl->fl_type needs to be saved before the
posix_test_lock() call and restored if no local conflicts were reported.

Reference: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23892
Tested-by: Alexander Morozov 
Signed-off-by: Sergey Vlasov 
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman 
Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen 

---
fs/nfs/file.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Index: linux-2.6.35.y/fs/nfs/file.c
===
--- linux-2.6.35.y.orig/fs/nfs/file.c
+++ linux-2.6.35.y/fs/nfs/file.c
@@ -696,6 +696,7 @@ static int do_getlk(struct file *filp, i
{
struct inode *inode = filp->f_mapping->host;
int status = 0;
+   unsigned int saved_type = fl->fl_type;

/* Try local locking first */
posix_test_lock(filp, fl);
@@ -703,6 +704,7 @@ static int do_getlk(struct file *filp, i
/* found a conflict */
goto out;
}
+   fl->fl_type = saved_type;

if (nfs_have_delegation(inode, FMODE_READ))
goto out_noconflict;
--

-Original Message-
From: Philip Ong 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:41 PM
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Cc: Philip Ong
Subject: oplocks issue when trying to copy file 

I'm not sure if this a Kernel/samba or NFS issue. We run this on Centos 5.6 
using a kernel.org kernel.

Please find below the problem description

When trying to copy a file to a samba share which has NFS backend on 2.6.36.3 
or newer Linux kernel following message is displayed on windows client 

"An unexpected error is keeping you from copying the file. If you continue to 
receive this error, you can use the error code to search for help with this 
problem.
Error 0x80070021: The process cannot access the file because another process 
has locked a portion of the file"

I am able to delete a file within the same directory structure. I am also able 
to create a file or folder by right-clicking within Windows Explorer on XP. 
Below are the logs generated by samba in debug mode. The main line of interest 
was:

  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd = 
33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)


Please note "test.cfg" was the file which we were trying to copy from windows

  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128330, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128339,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128348, 10] smbd/open.c:3414(create_file_default)
  create_file: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, share_access = 
0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock_request
= 0x3 root_dir_fid = 0x0, ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = 
home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128359,  3] smbd/vfs.c:881(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128377, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128386,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128394, 10] smbd/open.c:2941(create_file_unixpath)
  create_file_unixpath: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, 
share_access = 0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock
_request = 0x3 ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128406,  5] smbd/files.c:119(file_new)
  allocated file structure 14342, fnum = 18438 (4 used)
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128416,  3] smbd/dosmode.c:166(unix_mode)
  unix_mode(home/foo/open/test.cfg) returning 0744
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128424, 10] smbd/open.c:1556(open_file_ntcreate)
  open_file_ntcreate: fname=home/foo/open/test.cfg, dos_attrs=0x20 
access_mask=0x6019f share_access=0x0 create_disposition = 0x2 create_options
=0x44 unix mode=0744 oplock_requ

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-09-29 Thread Philip Ong 
Kernel tried on Centos 4.5 was 2.6.38.8

-Original Message-
From: Philip Ong 
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 3:44 PM
To: Philip Ong; 'samba@lists.samba.org'
Subject: RE: oplocks issue when trying to copy file 

I also tried this on Centos 4.5 and it has the same results so it is probably 
not distro related.

-Original Message-
From: Philip Ong 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:41 PM
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Cc: Philip Ong
Subject: oplocks issue when trying to copy file 

I'm not sure if this a Kernel/samba or NFS issue. We run this on Centos 5.6 
using a kernel.org kernel.

Please find below the problem description

When trying to copy a file to a samba share which has NFS backend on 2.6.36.3 
or newer Linux kernel following message is displayed on windows client 

"An unexpected error is keeping you from copying the file. If you continue to 
receive this error, you can use the error code to search for help with this 
problem.
Error 0x80070021: The process cannot access the file because another process 
has locked a portion of the file"

I am able to delete a file within the same directory structure. I am also able 
to create a file or folder by right-clicking within Windows Explorer on XP. 
Below are the logs generated by samba in debug mode. The main line of interest 
was:

  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd = 
33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)


Please note "test.cfg" was the file which we were trying to copy from windows

  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128330, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128339,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128348, 10] smbd/open.c:3414(create_file_default)
  create_file: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, share_access = 
0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock_request
= 0x3 root_dir_fid = 0x0, ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = 
home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128359,  3] smbd/vfs.c:881(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128377, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128386,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128394, 10] smbd/open.c:2941(create_file_unixpath)
  create_file_unixpath: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, 
share_access = 0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock
_request = 0x3 ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128406,  5] smbd/files.c:119(file_new)
  allocated file structure 14342, fnum = 18438 (4 used)
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128416,  3] smbd/dosmode.c:166(unix_mode)
  unix_mode(home/foo/open/test.cfg) returning 0744
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128424, 10] smbd/open.c:1556(open_file_ntcreate)
  open_file_ntcreate: fname=home/foo/open/test.cfg, dos_attrs=0x20 
access_mask=0x6019f share_access=0x0 create_disposition = 0x2 create_options
=0x44 unix mode=0744 oplock_request=3
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128434,  3] smbd/vfs.c:881(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128462, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128471,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128480, 10] smbd/open.c:1738(open_file_ntcreate)
  open_file_ntcreate: fname=home/foo/open/test.cfg, after mapping 
access_mask=0x6019f
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128489,  4] smbd/open.c:2000(open_file_ntcreate)
  calling open_file with flags=0x2 flags2=0xC0 mode=0744, access_mask = 
0x6019f, open_access_mask = 0x6019f
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132844, 10] smbd/open.c:180(fd_open)
  fd_open: name home/foo/open/test.cfg, flags = 0302 mode = 0744, fd = 33.
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132887, 10] smbd/notify_internal.c:890(notify_trigger)
  notify_trigger called action=0x1, filter=0x1, path=//home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132897,  2] smbd/open.c:657(open_file)
  jneil opened file home/foo/open/test.cfg read=Yes write=Yes (numopen=4)
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132909, 10] lib/dbwrap_tdb.c:100(db_tdb_fetch_locked)
  Locking key 1700AB41
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132919, 10] lib/dbwrap_tdb.c:129(db_tdb_fetch_locked)
  Allocated locked data 0x0x782393a0
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132938, 10] smbd/open.c:1057(delay_for_oplocks)
  delay_for_oplocks: oplock type 0x3 on file home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132947, 10] smbd/open.c:1057(delay_for_oplocks)

Re: [Samba] oplocks issue when trying to copy file

2011-09-28 Thread Philip Ong 
I also tried this on Centos 4.5 and it has the same results so it is probably 
not distro related.

-Original Message-
From: Philip Ong 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:41 PM
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Cc: Philip Ong
Subject: oplocks issue when trying to copy file 

I'm not sure if this a Kernel/samba or NFS issue. We run this on Centos 5.6 
using a kernel.org kernel.

Please find below the problem description

When trying to copy a file to a samba share which has NFS backend on 2.6.36.3 
or newer Linux kernel following message is displayed on windows client 

"An unexpected error is keeping you from copying the file. If you continue to 
receive this error, you can use the error code to search for help with this 
problem.
Error 0x80070021: The process cannot access the file because another process 
has locked a portion of the file"

I am able to delete a file within the same directory structure. I am also able 
to create a file or folder by right-clicking within Windows Explorer on XP. 
Below are the logs generated by samba in debug mode. The main line of interest 
was:

  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, fd = 
33, file_id = 17:aa41ab:0. (Invalid argument)


Please note "test.cfg" was the file which we were trying to copy from windows

  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128330, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128339,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128348, 10] smbd/open.c:3414(create_file_default)
  create_file: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, share_access = 
0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock_request
= 0x3 root_dir_fid = 0x0, ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = 
home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128359,  3] smbd/vfs.c:881(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128377, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128386,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128394, 10] smbd/open.c:2941(create_file_unixpath)
  create_file_unixpath: access_mask = 0x6019f file_attributes = 0x20, 
share_access = 0x0, create_disposition = 0x2 create_options = 0x44 oplock
_request = 0x3 ea_list = 0x(nil), sd = 0x(nil), fname = home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128406,  5] smbd/files.c:119(file_new)
  allocated file structure 14342, fnum = 18438 (4 used)
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128416,  3] smbd/dosmode.c:166(unix_mode)
  unix_mode(home/foo/open/test.cfg) returning 0744
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128424, 10] smbd/open.c:1556(open_file_ntcreate)
  open_file_ntcreate: fname=home/foo/open/test.cfg, dos_attrs=0x20 
access_mask=0x6019f share_access=0x0 create_disposition = 0x2 create_options
=0x44 unix mode=0744 oplock_request=3
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128434,  3] smbd/vfs.c:881(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name [home/foo/open/test.cfg] [/]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128462, 10] smbd/vfs.c:968(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name realpath [home/foo/open/test.cfg] -> 
[/home/foo/open/test.cfg]
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128471,  3] smbd/vfs.c:1038(check_reduced_name)
  check_reduced_name: home/foo/open/test.cfg reduced to /home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128480, 10] smbd/open.c:1738(open_file_ntcreate)
  open_file_ntcreate: fname=home/foo/open/test.cfg, after mapping 
access_mask=0x6019f
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.128489,  4] smbd/open.c:2000(open_file_ntcreate)
  calling open_file with flags=0x2 flags2=0xC0 mode=0744, access_mask = 
0x6019f, open_access_mask = 0x6019f
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132844, 10] smbd/open.c:180(fd_open)
  fd_open: name home/foo/open/test.cfg, flags = 0302 mode = 0744, fd = 33.
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132887, 10] smbd/notify_internal.c:890(notify_trigger)
  notify_trigger called action=0x1, filter=0x1, path=//home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132897,  2] smbd/open.c:657(open_file)
  jneil opened file home/foo/open/test.cfg read=Yes write=Yes (numopen=4)
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132909, 10] lib/dbwrap_tdb.c:100(db_tdb_fetch_locked)
  Locking key 1700AB41
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132919, 10] lib/dbwrap_tdb.c:129(db_tdb_fetch_locked)
  Allocated locked data 0x0x782393a0
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132938, 10] smbd/open.c:1057(delay_for_oplocks)
  delay_for_oplocks: oplock type 0x3 on file home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.132947, 10] smbd/open.c:1057(delay_for_oplocks)
  delay_for_oplocks: oplock type 0x3 on file home/foo/open/test.cfg
[2011/09/27 17:41:41.267573,  3] 
smbd/oplock_linux.c:120(linux_set_kernel_oplock)
  linux_set_kernel_oplock: Refused oplock on file home/foo/open/test.cfg, f

Re: [Samba] Oplocks & offline files & win 7 & excel

2011-06-27 Thread Martin Hochreiter 



Is your samba server a DC or a member server?

Our server is a DC (Samba 3.5.8 on Solaris 10.)   If we enable offline 
files on a Windows 7 laptop, cached credentials are broken and users 
cannot login offline at all.  I think Windows XP is OK.  It looks 
something changes with Windows Vista.I don't know what is going 
wrong, but I suspect there is the same underlying cause as your problem.

Hi!

That server is a DC (Samba 3.5.9 on CentOS 5.5). We dont have the 
problem with offline logins with windows 7 while offline sync is on, the 
"only" problem we see is curiously with that win7 & samba 3.5.9 can't 
sync excel files ...


regards
Martin
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks & offline files & win 7

2011-06-27 Thread Gaiseric Vandal 

On 06/27/2011 08:18 AM, Martin Hochreiter wrote:

Am 2011-06-27 14:02, schrieb Ander Punnar:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 14:22, Martin Hochreiter > wrote:


We experience problems with offline files - especially with xls or
xlsx files - between samba 3.5.9 and win 7


Disable offline files in Windows 7 group policies.

--
Sent from my PC.

mhmm ... we want to use that shares offline, if I disable them in the 
group policies then the sync would not

be working any more or has this an other effect?

regards


Is your samba server a DC or a member server?

Our server is a DC (Samba 3.5.8 on Solaris 10.)   If we enable offline 
files on a Windows 7 laptop, cached credentials are broken and users 
cannot login offline at all.  I think Windows XP is OK.  It looks 
something changes with Windows Vista.I don't know what is going 
wrong, but I suspect there is the same underlying cause as your problem.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks & offline files & win 7

2011-06-27 Thread Martin Hochreiter 

Am 2011-06-27 14:02, schrieb Ander Punnar:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 14:22, Martin Hochreiter > wrote:


We experience problems with offline files - especially with xls or
xlsx files - between samba 3.5.9 and win 7


Disable offline files in Windows 7 group policies.

--
Sent from my PC.

mhmm ... we want to use that shares offline, if I disable them in the 
group policies then the sync would not

be working any more or has this an other effect?

regards
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks & offline files & win 7

2011-06-27 Thread Ander Punnar 
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 14:22, Martin Hochreiter wrote:

> We experience problems with offline files - especially with xls or xlsx
> files - between samba 3.5.9 and win 7


Disable offline files in Windows 7 group policies.

-- 
Sent from my PC.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks

2010-07-28 Thread Lukas Hejtmanek 
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 05:20:50PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> Right. Then it's a bug. You might contact your RPM provider
> for support of this old Samba version.

Is Samba 3.3.8 also too old? It suffers from the same problem.

-- 
Lukáš Hejtmánek
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks

2010-07-19 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:25:33PM +0200, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:40:32PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > You're sure that you are not exporting the same file space
> > via two different nodes simultaneously? In theory, what you
> > describe should not happen, at least not with current Samba.
> > I'm not sure about ancient 3.0.33, but with current Samba
> > this can only happen if you run Samba on the same file
> > system from two different nodes. This is an invalid
> > configuration, you need to use the clustered Samba with ctdb
> > for that.
> 
> I have only one samba server for a GPFS volume so I should not need clustered
> Samba. Am I right?

Right. Then it's a bug. You might contact your RPM provider
for support of this old Samba version.

Volker
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks

2010-07-19 Thread Lukas Hejtmanek 
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:40:32PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> You're sure that you are not exporting the same file space
> via two different nodes simultaneously? In theory, what you
> describe should not happen, at least not with current Samba.
> I'm not sure about ancient 3.0.33, but with current Samba
> this can only happen if you run Samba on the same file
> system from two different nodes. This is an invalid
> configuration, you need to use the clustered Samba with ctdb
> for that.

I have only one samba server for a GPFS volume so I should not need clustered
Samba. Am I right?

-- 
Lukáš Hejtmánek
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks

2010-07-19 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 01:13:56PM +0200, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> I'm using the Samba server 3.0.33 that exports volume from a GPFS. The GPFS
> strongly dislikes unlinking files that are locked (resulting in permission
> denied) using fcntl F_SETLEASE.
> 
> It seems that the Samba *sometimes* tries to unlink a file that is oplocked.
> Why? Is this a bug? Why it does not happen always but only sometimes? I have
> strace logs showing:

You're sure that you are not exporting the same file space
via two different nodes simultaneously? In theory, what you
describe should not happen, at least not with current Samba.
I'm not sure about ancient 3.0.33, but with current Samba
this can only happen if you run Samba on the same file
system from two different nodes. This is an invalid
configuration, you need to use the clustered Samba with ctdb
for that.

Volker
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help

2010-05-23 Thread Mike Leone 

On 05/23/2010 10:11 AM, Volker Lendecke wrote:

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 01:21:41PM -0400, Fred Kienker wrote:

I've been setting up Samba servers for years under the impression
(delusion) that Samba can't handle multiple users on Access .mdb files
correctly with op locks turned on. Has this changed in the 3.5.x branch?


Well, it should work the same way (good or bad) it does
against a Windows server. Once a second opener comes in, the
oplocks should be broken anyway. If I remember correctly in
the past I have seen hints by Microsoft how to turn oplocks
off in Windows server for shares that host Access files, so
this problem might not be samba-specific and/or fixed in
recent Windows.


I can remember having to vastly increase the record-locking features of 
Netware 4, if you had users using Access dbs, especially multi-user. 
That was back around 2000 or so, so record-locking issues with Access 
dbs have been around for a really long time ...

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help

2010-05-23 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 01:21:41PM -0400, Fred Kienker wrote:
> I've been setting up Samba servers for years under the impression 
> (delusion) that Samba can't handle multiple users on Access .mdb files 
> correctly with op locks turned on. Has this changed in the 3.5.x branch?

Well, it should work the same way (good or bad) it does
against a Windows server. Once a second opener comes in, the
oplocks should be broken anyway. If I remember correctly in
the past I have seen hints by Microsoft how to turn oplocks
off in Windows server for shares that host Access files, so
this problem might not be samba-specific and/or fixed in
recent Windows.

Volker
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help

2010-05-23 Thread Fred Kienker 
> -Original Message-
> 
> Use an Access .mdb file.
> 
> Volker
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
> 

Volker:

I've been setting up Samba servers for years under the impression 
(delusion) that Samba can't handle multiple users on Access .mdb files 
correctly with op locks turned on. Has this changed in the 3.5.x branch?

Best regards,
Fred

Fred Kienker
AT4B
"Advanced Technologies for Business"

This transmission may contain information that is privileged, 
confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you 
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained 
herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you 
received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the 
sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic 
or hard copy format. Thank you.


-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help

2010-05-22 Thread Uri Simchoni 

> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 19:21:32 +0200
> From: volker.lende...@sernet.de
> To: uri_simch...@hotmail.com
> CC: samba@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help
> 
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 08:10:09PM +0300, Uri Simchoni wrote:
> > So a single-user mdb benefits from oplocks, multi-user mdb
> > suffers from oplocks, and applications that load/store
> > whole files are indifferent to it?
> 
> Not necessarily. I do know that MS Access suffers a lot
> without oplocks, I have seen a factor of 10 between an
> oplocked file and one without oplocks. This happened both
> against Windows and also against Samba.
> 
> Everything else very much depends on the application.
> Without oplocks the Windows redirector (the compontent that
> makes d: come from the net) passes the Win32 API calls
> directly to the wire. So if the application decides to read
> a gigabyte large file byte by byte, then it will severely
> suffer from missing oplocks. With oplocks the Windows
> redirector will coalesce and pre-read much larger blocks. If
> your application at hand however at the win32 level already
> reads in large chunks, you will see not much difference.
> 
> Can you take a look at your applications and see what they
> do?
> 
> Volker

 

What I'm really after is whether I should worry about oplocks in a Samba server 
or just turn them off. The reason for worrying is that I have the same file 
accessed using 2 shares: one "normal" and one that sits upon a special file 
system (linux fuse-based) that's really a layer above the normal file system. I 
cannot say what types of applications access these shares - they are for 
general use.

 

What I understand is that I should make oplocks work if possible (I understand 
that for starters, that dev/inode pair through both access points should be the 
same).

 

Thanks for the quick reply!

Uri.
 
  
_
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help

2010-05-22 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 08:10:09PM +0300, Uri Simchoni wrote:
> So a single-user mdb benefits from oplocks, multi-user mdb
> suffers from oplocks, and applications that load/store
> whole files are indifferent to it?

Not necessarily. I do know that MS Access suffers a lot
without oplocks, I have seen a factor of 10 between an
oplocked file and one without oplocks. This happened both
against Windows and also against Samba.

Everything else very much depends on the application.
Without oplocks the Windows redirector (the compontent that
makes d: come from the net) passes the Win32 API calls
directly to the wire. So if the application decides to read
a gigabyte large file byte by byte, then it will severely
suffer from missing oplocks. With oplocks the Windows
redirector will coalesce and pre-read much larger blocks. If
your application at hand however at the win32 level already
reads in large chunks, you will see not much difference.

Can you take a look at your applications and see what they
do?

Volker
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help

2010-05-22 Thread Uri Simchoni 

So a single-user mdb benefits from oplocks, multi-user mdb suffers from 
oplocks, and applications that load/store whole files are indifferent to it?

Thanks,

Uri.
 
> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 18:55:02 +0200
> From: volker.lende...@sernet.de
> To: uri_simch...@hotmail.com
> CC: samba@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help
> 
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:21:52PM +0300, Uri Simchoni wrote:
> > I googled around and the general wisdom seems to be that
> > oplocks provide a performance gain if files are accessed
> > by a single client at a time (that is, if the oplock does
> > not break).
> > 
> > What I can't figure out is what test can show this
> > performance gain. I mean, theoretically, document-editing
> > applications (Word,excel) save and load whole files and
> > hence do not benefit from oplocks. Applications which do
> > modify portions of a file usually flush buffers to
> > maintain transactional integrity and hence should not
> > benefit from oplocks either.
> > 
> > So, how can I demonstrate the benefit of oplocks?
> 
> Use an Access .mdb file.
> 
> Volker
  
_
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks - when do they help

2010-05-22 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 06:21:52PM +0300, Uri Simchoni wrote:
> I googled around and the general wisdom seems to be that
> oplocks provide a performance gain if files are accessed
> by a single client at a time (that is, if the oplock does
> not break).
> 
> What I can't figure out is what test can show this
> performance gain. I mean, theoretically, document-editing
> applications (Word,excel) save and load whole files and
> hence do not benefit from oplocks. Applications which do
> modify portions of a file usually flush buffers to
> maintain transactional integrity and hence should not
> benefit from oplocks either.
> 
> So, how can I demonstrate the benefit of oplocks?

Use an Access .mdb file.

Volker
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: RESOLVED: (sorta) Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Remy Zandwijk 

Toby Bluhm wrote:

Terry Haley wrote:
Actually Dan that helps a lot. It tells me the amount of work and 
effort it takes to bend this application in order to fit a mold it was 
not intended for. In the end, I decided to bite the bullet and make my 
PDC double as my primary file server. 45 mins of swapping an FC-nic, 
remapping the lvm's and reconfiguring the smb.conf in order to make 
this a non-issue and prevent more complexity proliferation is well 
worth it. It's a shame it doesn't handle remote file systems more 
elegantly.





Here are the steps:

configure the 2nd samba server as a client, join it to the domain, add a 
dfs enabled share, dfs enable the PDC, create the filesystem link(s), done.


Should take 5 minutes.



True. But keep in mind that Mac OS X machines won't follow DFS links. At least 
until 10.5.6.


-Remy
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: RESOLVED: (sorta) Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Brian Krusic 

Clearly some one who hasn't worked with Samba for that long.

Theres no shame about Samba, it does what it does well, PDC and SMB  
sharing and has saved my a#% several times.


I never chimed in as I didn't and still don't follow the thread.

You can stack as many disk protocol sharing services as you want on a  
single box, but if you want to re export from one to another, sounds  
to me like you are very junior in the network fs space.


As for MSDFS, man that sh$# sux.

If you require clustering of that nature, start doing an RFQ from  
NetApp or BlueArc, etc... even look on eBay and actual auctions.  My  
buddy picked up a few slightly used NetApps for $3.5K each at 4TB.



- Brian

On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Terry Haley wrote:

Actually Dan that helps a lot. It tells me the amount of work and  
effort it takes to bend this application in order to fit a mold it  
was not intended for. In the end, I decided to bite the bullet and  
make my PDC double as my primary file server. 45 mins of swapping an  
FC-nic, remapping the lvm's and reconfiguring the smb.conf in order  
to make this a non-issue and prevent more complexity proliferation  
is well worth it. It's a shame it doesn't handle remote file systems  
more elegantly.


Thank you, everyone, for your comments and advice.
Terry




On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Daniel Bourque wrote:

I keep an old RH7 VM running samba as a gateway to NFS shares for  
our older Mac boxes , because I was having problems with the  
ressource fork on newer implementations of samba. everything works  
perfect


with newer versions of samba, I experience lock issues accessing  
the same NFS shares. So I also have samba running on ever NFS  
servers, and drives are mapped directly to the server were the file  
system is locally mounted.


As Volker said, look into msfds. It will allow you to point your  
clients to one SMB server and access SMB shares off other servers  
in a transparent way.  You'll still need to install Samba on the  
NFS file servers you want to acesss.


hope this helps

Dan



Terry Haley wrote:
So reading this, I assume that noone uses samba as a simple  
authentication/gateway to network shares for windows machines.  
Since you are limited to sharing local volumes on the PDC? How  
would I go about setting up a passthrough for my machines to the  
actual fileserver? Do I setup clients on the file server? do I  
have samba point them with credentials to the file server?


On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote:


On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:59:11AM -0400, Terry Haley wrote:
Hmm, so the thing would be to convert my NFS server to use  
samba? and

setup  an smbfs on the PDC?


No, you should not re-export *any* file system you imported
from some network file system. You should direct your
clients at the original file server holding the storage, if
necessary via msdfs redirects.

Volker







The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to  
whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and  
the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance  
HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to  
you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender  
and properly

dispose of the e-mail.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: RESOLVED: (sorta) Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Toby Bluhm 

Terry Haley wrote:
Actually Dan that helps a lot. It tells me the amount of work and effort 
it takes to bend this application in order to fit a mold it was not 
intended for. In the end, I decided to bite the bullet and make my PDC 
double as my primary file server. 45 mins of swapping an FC-nic, 
remapping the lvm's and reconfiguring the smb.conf in order to make this 
a non-issue and prevent more complexity proliferation is well worth it. 
It's a shame it doesn't handle remote file systems more elegantly.





Here are the steps:

configure the 2nd samba server as a client, join it to the domain, add a 
dfs enabled share, dfs enable the PDC, create the filesystem link(s), done.


Should take 5 minutes.


--
tkb
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

RESOLVED: (sorta) Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Terry Haley 
Actually Dan that helps a lot. It tells me the amount of work and  
effort it takes to bend this application in order to fit a mold it was  
not intended for. In the end, I decided to bite the bullet and make my  
PDC double as my primary file server. 45 mins of swapping an FC-nic,  
remapping the lvm's and reconfiguring the smb.conf in order to make  
this a non-issue and prevent more complexity proliferation is well  
worth it. It's a shame it doesn't handle remote file systems more  
elegantly.


Thank you, everyone, for your comments and advice.
Terry




On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Daniel Bourque wrote:

I keep an old RH7 VM running samba as a gateway to NFS shares for  
our older Mac boxes , because I was having problems with the  
ressource fork on newer implementations of samba. everything works  
perfect


with newer versions of samba, I experience lock issues accessing the  
same NFS shares. So I also have samba running on ever NFS servers,  
and drives are mapped directly to the server were the file system is  
locally mounted.


As Volker said, look into msfds. It will allow you to point your  
clients to one SMB server and access SMB shares off other servers in  
a transparent way.  You'll still need to install Samba on the NFS  
file servers you want to acesss.


hope this helps

Dan



Terry Haley wrote:
So reading this, I assume that noone uses samba as a simple  
authentication/gateway to network shares for windows machines.  
Since you are limited to sharing local volumes on the PDC? How  
would I go about setting up a passthrough for my machines to the  
actual fileserver? Do I setup clients on the file server? do I have  
samba point them with credentials to the file server?


On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote:


On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:59:11AM -0400, Terry Haley wrote:
Hmm, so the thing would be to convert my NFS server to use samba?  
and

setup  an smbfs on the PDC?


No, you should not re-export *any* file system you imported
from some network file system. You should direct your
clients at the original file server holding the storage, if
necessary via msdfs redirects.

Volker







The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Daniel Bourque 
I keep an old RH7 VM running samba as a gateway to NFS shares for our 
older Mac boxes , because I was having problems with the ressource fork 
on newer implementations of samba. everything works perfect


with newer versions of samba, I experience lock issues accessing the 
same NFS shares. So I also have samba running on ever NFS servers, and 
drives are mapped directly to the server were the file system is locally 
mounted.


As Volker said, look into msfds. It will allow you to point your clients 
to one SMB server and access SMB shares off other servers in a 
transparent way.  You'll still need to install Samba on the NFS file 
servers you want to acesss.


hope this helps

Dan



Terry Haley wrote:
So reading this, I assume that noone uses samba as a simple 
authentication/gateway to network shares for windows machines. Since 
you are limited to sharing local volumes on the PDC? How would I go 
about setting up a passthrough for my machines to the actual 
fileserver? Do I setup clients on the file server? do I have samba 
point them with credentials to the file server?


On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote:


On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:59:11AM -0400, Terry Haley wrote:

Hmm, so the thing would be to convert my NFS server to use samba? and
setup  an smbfs on the PDC?


No, you should not re-export *any* file system you imported
from some network file system. You should direct your
clients at the original file server holding the storage, if
necessary via msdfs redirects.

Volker




The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom 
it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the 
e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance 
HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you 
in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender 
and properly

dispose of the e-mail.



--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Terry Haley 
So reading this, I assume that noone uses samba as a simple  
authentication/gateway to network shares for windows machines. Since  
you are limited to sharing local volumes on the PDC? How would I go  
about setting up a passthrough for my machines to the actual  
fileserver? Do I setup clients on the file server? do I have samba  
point them with credentials to the file server?


On Jun 9, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Volker Lendecke wrote:


On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:59:11AM -0400, Terry Haley wrote:

Hmm, so the thing would be to convert my NFS server to use samba? and
setup  an smbfs on the PDC?


No, you should not re-export *any* file system you imported
from some network file system. You should direct your
clients at the original file server holding the storage, if
necessary via msdfs redirects.

Volker




The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:59:11AM -0400, Terry Haley wrote:
> Hmm, so the thing would be to convert my NFS server to use samba? and  
> setup  an smbfs on the PDC?

No, you should not re-export *any* file system you imported
from some network file system. You should direct your
clients at the original file server holding the storage, if
necessary via msdfs redirects.

Volker


pgpAYMrDygSk3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Terry Haley 
Hmm, so the thing would be to convert my NFS server to use samba? and  
setup  an smbfs on the PDC?





On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Daniel Bourque wrote:

I've had hit and miss problems with locks on sharing NFS mounted SMB  
shares. Works good with some NFS servers, not well wither others.


I was told in this list that it's not a supported samba config, so I  
gave up trying to reliably use them.


Dan



Terry Haley wrote:
What have people found with oplocks in the realm of really saving  
time? Is it something that's always good to have in an environment  
where two files being accessed simultaneously is rare? My shared  
volume is an NFS on a remote server. Just curious what folks have  
experienced.



Terry


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to  
whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and  
the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners  
Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to  
you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender  
and properly

dispose of the e-mail.


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba


Terry Haley, Ph.D.
Systems Admin, Microarray Core
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
21-27 Burlington Ave. / B466
Boston, MA 02215
email: terry_ha...@dfci.harvard.edu
tel: 617-632-6043
fax: 617-632-5697
web: http://chip.dfci.harvard.edu

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks question

2009-06-09 Thread Daniel Bourque 
I've had hit and miss problems with locks on sharing NFS mounted SMB 
shares. Works good with some NFS servers, not well wither others.


I was told in this list that it's not a supported samba config, so I 
gave up trying to reliably use them.


Dan



Terry Haley wrote:
What have people found with oplocks in the realm of really saving 
time? Is it something that's always good to have in an environment 
where two files being accessed simultaneously is rare? My shared 
volume is an NFS on a remote server. Just curious what folks have 
experienced.



Terry


The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom 
it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the 
e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance 
HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you 
in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender 
and properly

dispose of the e-mail.


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks OS X

2008-07-30 Thread James Peach 
2008/7/30 Aquaserver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello
> I enable oplocks on samba server and testparm send me no error.
> But when 2 users open the same file there is nothing like "File in Use" (i
> have seen this on a forum).
> All client use OS X, normally samba works fine on it.

oplocks aren't locks in the sense of you have one and I don't get
access. they are a permission to cache. If an application holds an
oplock on a file, that will not prevent another application opening
the same file.

-- 
James Peach | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

[Samba] Re: samba oplocks not breaking

2008-06-22 Thread Brian May 

Brian May wrote:
Yes, you are right, I probably will need to reproduce this with a higher 
level of debugging. Will try that now.


In one of my other messages I quoted the kernel stack trace, but I have 
been told that cannot be trusted; it could be using old data.


https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5557

Brian May

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

[Samba] Re: samba oplocks not breaking

2008-06-22 Thread Brian May 

Volker Lendecke wrote:

If both processes are Samba, the kernel oplock break
mechanism should not be involved at all. At least it is
supposed to work so that the oplock break is done with
messages between the smbds. Kernel oplocks are only for
interop with NFS and local unix processes. So if you're
seeing kernel oplock breaks for files just held by Samba,
Samba has a bug. If you can reproduce it, please file a bug
at bugzilla.samba.org and upload a debug level 10 log of
both smbd processes involved. Please also with "debug hires
timestamps = yes".


I am not quite clear on this.

It would appear other Unix processes and other Samba processes are 
denied access to the file:


2008/06/19 15:24:08, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(351)
  Oplock break failed for file cur/config.xml -- replying anyway
[2008/06/19 15:24:51, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(351)
  Oplock break failed for file cur/profiles.xml -- replying anyway
[2008/06/19 15:25:21, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(351)
  Oplock break failed for file cur/profiles/vpac.xml -- replying anyway
[2008/06/19 15:25:51, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(351)
  Oplock break failed for file cur/hosts.xml -- replying anyway
[2008/06/19 15:26:21, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(351)
  Oplock break failed for file cur/hosts/vpac.xml -- replying anyway
[2008/06/19 15:26:51, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(351)
  Oplock break failed for file cur/packages.xml -- replying anyway
[2008/06/19 15:27:21, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(351)
  Oplock break failed for file cur/packages/winscp.xml -- replying anyway

Something strange going on here.

Yes, you are right, I probably will need to reproduce this with a higher 
level of debugging. Will try that now.


In one of my other messages I quoted the kernel stack trace, but I have 
been told that cannot be trusted; it could be using old data.


Brian May

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

RE: [Samba] Oplocks not taking place at all unless fake oplocks = yes - Update

2006-07-05 Thread Chris Wagner 
I've modified the contention limit in attempt to troubleshoot this, thinking 
that perhaps the client may be requesting multiple oplocks for whatever reason. 
 The client is still not getting an oplock without specifying 'fake oplocks = 
yes'.  I'm open to any ideas for troubleshooting.  I've also checked to see if 
oplocks are explicitly disabled on the client, and they are not.  I do 
experience this with more than one client as well, a Windows 2000 Professional 
client, and a Windows XP Professional client (inside a VMWare session).

TIA
- Chris Wagner

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Chris Wagner
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:54 AM
To: samba@lists.samba.org
Subject: [Samba] Oplocks not taking place at all unless fake oplocks =
yes


Hi folks I'm running two Samba servers.  One is on Ubuntu 5.10
(samba-3.0.14a-6ubuntu1), the other is SuSE Linux Enterprise Server
(samba-3.0.20b-3.4).  The Ubuntu box is on my local network, and the
SLES box is across a WAN with an intervening WAFS appliance with TCP
acceleration.

Neither set-up seems to grant an oplock to the client unless I turn on
'fake oplocks'.  I've set 'oplocks = yes' and 'locking = yes' explicitly
in my config file to no avail.

Obviously, 'fake oplocks' isn't something I want to turn on in a
production environment.  I'm looking for some help in narrowing down
where the problem lies.

Thanks in advance.

--
Christopher Wagner
Amy's Kitchen - http://www.amys.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sr. Systems Administrator

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks break and no route to host problems

2006-04-18 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:48:42PM +0200, xavier wrote:
> I've tried this day to put veto oplocks in (global) section onto .DAT 
> and .POL files
> and into netlogon and profiles section I've put : "locking = No"
> seems better in my logs now.

locking=no is not a good idea for general use, this might
lead to data corruption. And if you want to disable oplocks,
the option oplocks=no would be more appropriate. And, as I
said, you should _REALLY_ check your network infrastructure
like half/full duplex settings, current driver versions and
so on.

Volker


pgpTrLSSFtjc6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks break and no route to host problems

2006-04-18 Thread xavier 

Thanks Volker,

I've tried this day to put veto oplocks in (global) section onto .DAT 
and .POL files

and into netlogon and profiles section I've put : "locking = No"
seems better in my logs now.
I just still have antothers little pb. that I will post a mail in this 
list next to this one.


Xavier

Volker Lendecke a écrit :

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:44:31PM +0200, xavier wrote:
  
I' m experiencing many problems with oplocks break failure and Error: no 
route to host.essentialy onto \profiles dir and \netlogon dir.
So My clients cannot update many files on the SAMBA/PDC and cannot read 
the NTconfig.pol file to update their policies.
I have many PC that are old computers with Win2k and have an Antivirus 
and are slower machines ...

This problem less occurs on newer machines.
I have seen searching the web that I may disable oplock (oplock = False) 
into the smb.conf and "level 2 oplock" too.
I don' t now if my default configuration have this parameter set cause I 
don't see it into my smb.conf.
But perhaps I can play with a delay parameter that I could but bigger, 
is it possible ?



The only thing that makes sense here is to completely
disable oplocks, although this does not solve your real
problem.

99% this is your network, maybe some broken switch, more
likely problems with network card drivers either on clients
or the server.

Volker
  


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks break and no route to host problems

2006-04-17 Thread Volker Lendecke 
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 01:44:31PM +0200, xavier wrote:
> I' m experiencing many problems with oplocks break failure and Error: no 
> route to host.essentialy onto \profiles dir and \netlogon dir.
> So My clients cannot update many files on the SAMBA/PDC and cannot read 
> the NTconfig.pol file to update their policies.
> I have many PC that are old computers with Win2k and have an Antivirus 
> and are slower machines ...
> This problem less occurs on newer machines.
> I have seen searching the web that I may disable oplock (oplock = False) 
> into the smb.conf and "level 2 oplock" too.
> I don' t now if my default configuration have this parameter set cause I 
> don't see it into my smb.conf.
> But perhaps I can play with a delay parameter that I could but bigger, 
> is it possible ?

The only thing that makes sense here is to completely
disable oplocks, although this does not solve your real
problem.

99% this is your network, maybe some broken switch, more
likely problems with network card drivers either on clients
or the server.

Volker


pgpFFc5w6rzGK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and Excel

2006-01-26 Thread Josh Kelley 
On 1/25/06, Matt Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When they save open Excel files from Windows, they are prompted to
> overwrite the existing file. I mean, when they click the little disk
> icon or use Ctrl-S or File--Save. Excel would normally just write over
> the file, not check with an "are you sure?" prompt. But that's what
> they get.

This bug was fixed in Samba 3.0.11, IIRC.  If you don't want to
upgrade Samba, you should be able to get rid of the message by setting
your Excel workbooks for sharing.  (Under Excel's Tools menu, choose
Share Workbook.)  Microsoft's knowledgebase also describes the issue
at http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/324491/en-us?; I
remember trying the fix they suggest there, but I can't remember if it
worked or not.

Regarding your oplocks question, we've left them on for everything but
Outlook .pst files (which sometimes had locking errors with oplocks
enabled) and have had no problems that I'm aware of, but others are
probably more qualified to speak on this.

Josh Kelley
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks

2005-11-10 Thread Josh Kelley 
On 11/9/05, Dennis Barch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to disable oplocks on our system.
> Is it sufficient to set:
>
> oplocks = no
> level2 oplocks = no
>
> or do I need to also set
> kernel oplocks = no

Changing kernel oplocks should be unnecessary; the smb.conf man page
makes it sound like kernel oplocks only alters the behavior of
oplocks, so if oplocks are off, it will have no effect.

Josh Kelley
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

RE: [Samba] oplocks, QuickBooks (Samba 3)

2005-07-12 Thread Liz Ackerman 
Sorry, didn't mean for that to go to you personally, must remember to choose
reply all and remove personal emails ;o)

I am still curious, I have this for my quickbooks share:

[accting]
comment = Accounting Volume
path = /accting
writeable = yes
valid users = list of valid users
oplocks = no
level2 oplocks = no
force group = group
force user = user
inherit permissions = yes
create mask = 0771
directory mask = 0771
vfs object = recycle:recycle
recycle:repository = .deleted
recycle:keeptree = Yes
recycle:touch = Yes
recycle:versions = Yes

Is there anything in this config you would suggest changing/removing/adding?

Liz

> > Ryan
> >
> > I am continuing to have issues with my users and their Quickbooks
> > application as well as a MS Access shared database.  Can you share
> > with me
> > your setup?  Are your users able to use Quickbooks on a Samba share
> > without
> > corrupting the databases?
>
> Sure, must make the following is in the share dedicated to quickbooks:
>
> oplocks = no
>
> Works fine then, but this disables some caching which will slow down
> other files shared in the same directory.  For now, I'm just creating
> a [quickbooks] share just with Quickbooks inside of it.
>
> Also, I would re-post this question on the list... not just to me.
> It demonstrates other people are having issues and reinforces my
> question.
>
> >
> > I haven't used any previous versions of Samba, and we're on Samb
> > 3.0.14 a
> > RedHat ES installation.
> >
> > Thanks, appreciate any feedback you can provide!
> >
> > Liz
> >

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

[Samba] Re: samba oplocks ...

2004-04-02 Thread Jeff umbach 
What exactly are you trying to configure locking for?  Are you running a
network where the same files may be accessed at the same time?

Samba should have at least regular and level2 oplocks on be default.  I
don't believe kernel oplocks are on be default but they aren't needed unless
you're sharing a file that the linux system also writes to.

Keep in mind that for multi-user database stuff you do not want oplocks in
use with your database files.  I use the veto oplock files option to deal
with that.

All this and more can be found by typing 'man smb.conf' at the command line.

"victor mejia vazquez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

I've tried to configure samba to lock files bewteen windows and linux but i
couldn't i've
read a lot of messages here, but trere is no one that have something about
the file smb.conf.

i have this in my global secction but i doesn't work
[global]
workgroup = GMC
create mask = 0777
os level = 16
directory mask = 0777
hosts allow = 192.168.0., 127.
share modes = no
max log size = 1000
lock directory = /tmp/samba/lock
level2 oplocks = yes
strict locking = yes
kernel oplocks = Yes
blocking locks = Yes
fake oplocks = No
oplocks = Yes
level2 oplocks = Yes

can anybody give me suggestions, maybe someone has te same problem..

thank you

-
Estas vacaciones... no viajes sól@: http://www.muchagente.com
Ya.com ADSL Router Wi-Fi: Sólo 29,90 ?/mes + IVA*. Router + Antivirus y
firewall ¡Gratis!
http://ir.ya.com/app/redir?o=2&prefix=p_ya_com_&tgt810&afiliado=footer

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba



-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks ?

2004-03-21 Thread Marco F. Cavaliere 
Hi everybody.
   Cold some one explain me why when I try to access to my samba shares 
with the netbios name, i received this error in the log?

-- log.10.0.0.222 -- is the address of the client wich i 
use for access to the samba box

[2004/03/21 15:19:58, 1] smbd/sesssetup.c:reply_spnego_kerberos(173)
 Failed to verify incoming ticket!
[2004/03/21 15:19:58, 1] smbd/sesssetup.c:reply_spnego_kerberos(173)
 Failed to verify incoming ticket!
--

This kind of error, wiht the same configuration, are not given if I 
access to the samba box directly to the ip address, if I specify in the 
configuration:

security = SERVER, insteand
security = ADS
The error disappear, obviously i've done the join of the domain wiht 
"net ads join -U cava" (cava have the administrator rights)...

I use debian with the kerberos (not heimdal one that dosen't work), 
winbind and samba 3.01
Any Idea?



10x
*M*
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks

2003-06-05 Thread jra 
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 08:09:24AM -0500, Brandon Lederer wrote:
> I have read that I need to turn oplocks off for QuickBooks.  I think I
> understand what Oplocks are.  I also believe I understand why I need to turn
> them off.  But in Windows, where is this option?  Are Oplocks always on in
> windows?  If this is the case, I reiterate why do I need to turn them off in
> Samba?

oplocks are usually on in both Windows and Samba. In Samba
you can turn them off per share or file or globally in the
smb.conf. In Windows you can only turn them off globally
in the registry.

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks

2003-06-05 Thread John H Terpstra 
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Brandon Lederer wrote:

> I have read that I need to turn oplocks off for QuickBooks.  I think I
> understand what Oplocks are.  I also believe I understand why I need to turn
> them off.  But in Windows, where is this option?  Are Oplocks always on in
> windows?  If this is the case, I reiterate why do I need to turn them off in
> Samba?

Suggest you read the chapter on locking in the following, it might help:

http://samba.org/~jht/NT4migration/Samba-HOWTO-Collection.pdf

- John T.
-- 
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

Re: [Samba] oplocks in 2.2.8a

2003-06-04 Thread John H Terpstra 
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can I turn off oplocks for a particluer dir on a share
> or is it entire share only?

Oops. There's always "veto oplock files", I've never used it, but it's
there.

- John T.
-- 
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

Re: [Samba] oplocks in 2.2.8a

2003-06-04 Thread John H Terpstra 
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can I turn off oplocks for a particluer dir on a share
> or is it entire share only?

Entire share.

- John T.
-- 
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

Re: [Samba] oplocks in 2.2.8a

2003-06-04 Thread bkrusic 
ooops, its veto oplocks option

sorry for the post

Bri-

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] Oplocks...again...

2002-12-19 Thread John H Terpstra 
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, William Jojo wrote:

>
>
> I would like to know if like the [homes] section mapped to a single user
> at login time (H: drive) would have any of the problems discussed in
> previous emails.
>
> Specifically the oplock break issue. Since one and only one user can have
> this space mapped in our  implementation (because of credential conflicts
> that windows does not allow), how could a user have a detrimental
> experience with oplocks?

It is the MS Windows client that decides whether or not to use file
caching based on the server's ability to handle it. Only Samba allows this
to be controlled on a per share basis.

The performance difference is most noticible where the same file is
repetitively accessed by the same application, but can be very significant
also for MS Excel and MS Word files because of the way that they implement
file access.

>
> Since only that user can open the files whether .xls, .mdb or .doc (don't
> mean to pick on M$-Office) there should be no issue, right?

In single user access the issues are likely to be minor and I would enable
oplocks. If the same user logs in multiple times and opens the same file
on each machine then there is still a risk.

>
> I ask primarily because I've had oplocks off for some time now, but am
> always wondering about performance increases - I'll take them where I can
> get them.

Try it! Let us know what differences you notice.

> My other question is regarding a read-only share. We serve *lots* of
> software from what we call our M: drive. How will oplocks and/or level2
> oplocks help there? I'm not sure I see how they will. I'm at the mercy of
> the randomness of served software, right?

If hte file has been cached in workstation memory it will open much faster
on second and subsequent access.

- John T.

> Any info on this will help.
>
> Thanks Samba Team - You've done a great job so far - it is greatly
> appreciated!
>
>
> Bill
>
>

-- 
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

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-18 Thread Simo Sorce 
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 17:34, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 17:02, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> > 
> >>To get it, you need to put this line into your /etc/sources.list:
> >>
> >>deb http://www.perrier.eu.org/samba-debian stable main
> > 
> > 
> > Of course you need, but if you do not have access to the directory it is
> > really difficult apt-get will have either (and it does not have infact)
> > !!
> > 
> Well, I do not have access to it through the browser, but apt-get works 
> with that line just fine.  I think you should try it again.  Use the 
> *exact* line I showed above.
> 
> I just tested it and it works.

Oh, yes sorry, I was fooled by an unrelated error I got with my apt-get
:-/

However I'm going to upload 2.2.7a team package on samba.org

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce-  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Samba Team-  http://www.samba.org
Italian Site  -  http://samba.xsec.it
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-18 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Simo Sorce wrote:

On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 17:02, Keith G. Murphy wrote:


To get it, you need to put this line into your /etc/sources.list:

deb http://www.perrier.eu.org/samba-debian stable main



Of course you need, but if you do not have access to the directory it is
really difficult apt-get will have either (and it does not have infact)
!!


Well, I do not have access to it through the browser, but apt-get works 
with that line just fine.  I think you should try it again.  Use the 
*exact* line I showed above.

I just tested it and it works.


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-18 Thread Simo Sorce 
On Wed, 2002-12-18 at 17:02, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> To get it, you need to put this line into your /etc/sources.list:
> 
> deb http://www.perrier.eu.org/samba-debian stable main

Of course you need, but if you do not have access to the directory it is
really difficult apt-get will have either (and it does not have infact)
!!

> Then run apt-get update.
> 
> apt-get install samba --simulate will show you what the installation 
> *would* do then.

Been there, done that.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce-  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Samba Team-  http://www.samba.org
Italian Site  -  http://samba.xsec.it
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-18 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Simo Sorce wrote:

On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 23:49, Keith G. Murphy wrote:


Simo Sorce wrote:


Samba 2.2.3a has been realeased on february the 6th, they are 10 (ten)
months !!! And 2.2.7a contains *lot* of bugfixes that will make also
woody users a lot more happy.

Simo.



Well, there is this:

http://www.perrier.eu.org/debian/index.html.en

I just noticed it, linked to by this:

http://www.apt-get.org/

Cannot vouch for these unofficial packages, of course.  :-)



Unfortunately there is no access there:
http://www.perrier.eu.org/samba-debian/


To get it, you need to put this line into your /etc/sources.list:

deb http://www.perrier.eu.org/samba-debian stable main

Then run apt-get update.

apt-get install samba --simulate will show you what the installation 
*would* do then.


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-18 Thread Simo Sorce 
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 23:49, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Samba 2.2.3a has been realeased on february the 6th, they are 10 (ten)
> > months !!! And 2.2.7a contains *lot* of bugfixes that will make also
> > woody users a lot more happy.
> > 
> > Simo.
> > 
> Well, there is this:
> 
> http://www.perrier.eu.org/debian/index.html.en
> 
> I just noticed it, linked to by this:
> 
> http://www.apt-get.org/
> 
> Cannot vouch for these unofficial packages, of course.  :-)

Unfortunately there is no access there:
http://www.perrier.eu.org/samba-debian/

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /samba-debian/ on this server.

However I'm going to build team packages for debian.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce-  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Samba Team-  http://www.samba.org
Italian Site  -  http://samba.xsec.it
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-17 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Simo Sorce wrote:

Samba 2.2.3a has been realeased on february the 6th, they are 10 (ten)
months !!! And 2.2.7a contains *lot* of bugfixes that will make also
woody users a lot more happy.

Simo.


Well, there is this:

http://www.perrier.eu.org/debian/index.html.en

I just noticed it, linked to by this:

http://www.apt-get.org/

Cannot vouch for these unofficial packages, of course.  :-)


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-16 Thread Mark Ferlatte 
begin  Simo Sorce quote on Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:15:21AM +0100:
> You got me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with debian, and use it with much
> joy. I do know debian only vaguely, just I see that sometimes it is
> really very slow, 10 months is really a lot of time without an upgrade.
> I'm ok with good scrutiny, but it seem that samba has been forgotten
> this time :-)

But it's _really_ easy to rebuild samba from source for Debian if you
want a newer version... the debian packaging, with instructions, is
available in the .tar.gz.  I do it all the time.

I figure that the stability of Debian just allows me to worry about the
actual problems on my network/systems, instead of playing the "we must
perform an upgrade" dance all the time.

M



msg10876/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Simo Sorce 
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 00:06, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:

> > That's fine with development versions, but samba stable is ... well ...
> > stable :-)
> > 
> There's (at least) three other things involved here, though:
> 
> * Because upstream (samba developers) say something is stable may not be 
> good enough for Debian team, since they have to stand behind it
> * Some of the testing is on the Debian package itself: how well does it 
> integrate into Debian, etc.
> * Debian is not one entity, but a group of developers; if the Samba 
> maintainer were allowed to shove a new package into stable, that might 
> be OK; but other developers would want to do the same thing, and, sooner 
> or later, stable would get a showstopping problem.
> 
> I would say that third reason is really important.  Stated another way, 
> because Debian is very loosely organized, no one person can decide what 
> can/cannot go into stable; therefore it is governed by policy, which had 
> to govern everyone, and therefore errs on the cautious side.
> 
> Does that make sense?  If you don't like this sort of loosely organized 
> team, which has political problems, you might like another distribution 
> better.  With a whole other set of problems.  :-)

You got me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with debian, and use it with much
joy. I do know debian only vaguely, just I see that sometimes it is
really very slow, 10 months is really a lot of time without an upgrade.
I'm ok with good scrutiny, but it seem that samba has been forgotten
this time :-)

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Simo Sorce wrote:

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 23:24, Keith G. Murphy wrote:


Simo Sorce wrote:




I can't not understand with debian cannot update packeges that are in
the stable version ... but that's a debian problem not samba related ...



Well, I think I understand and approve of the reasons: it's so packages 
can get tested properly before you run them on your 'stable' server.


That's fine with development versions, but samba stable is ... well ...
stable :-)


There's (at least) three other things involved here, though:

* Because upstream (samba developers) say something is stable may not be 
good enough for Debian team, since they have to stand behind it
* Some of the testing is on the Debian package itself: how well does it 
integrate into Debian, etc.
* Debian is not one entity, but a group of developers; if the Samba 
maintainer were allowed to shove a new package into stable, that might 
be OK; but other developers would want to do the same thing, and, sooner 
or later, stable would get a showstopping problem.

I would say that third reason is really important.  Stated another way, 
because Debian is very loosely organized, no one person can decide what 
can/cannot go into stable; therefore it is governed by policy, which had 
to govern everyone, and therefore errs on the cautious side.

Does that make sense?  If you don't like this sort of loosely organized 
team, which has political problems, you might like another distribution 
better.  With a whole other set of problems.  :-)



--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Simo Sorce 
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 23:24, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:

> > I can't not understand with debian cannot update packeges that are in
> > the stable version ... but that's a debian problem not samba related ...
> > 
> Well, I think I understand and approve of the reasons: it's so packages 
> can get tested properly before you run them on your 'stable' server.

That's fine with development versions, but samba stable is ... well ...
stable :-)

> And they backport security fixes, so you get the best of both worlds, 
> generally.

Yes generally it is a really good idea

> If you want latest features, run 'testing' or 'unstable'.

No on my servers I use stable too, it was not a general question, but a
specific one toward samba.

Samba 2.2.3a has been realeased on february the 6th, they are 10 (ten)
months !!! And 2.2.7a contains *lot* of bugfixes that will make also
woody users a lot more happy.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Simo Sorce wrote:

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 19:38, Keith G. Murphy wrote:


Oddly enough, I got oplock problems when I upgraded from 2.2.3a-6 to 
2.2.3a-12, whereupon I filed a bug and downgraded.

The Debian maintainer assured me nothing had been done but security 
backports; so I upgraded again and crossed my fingers.  I just noticed I 
got some oplock errors day before yesterday, so time to downgrade again 
and watch.


I can't not understand with debian cannot update packeges that are in
the stable version ... but that's a debian problem not samba related ...


Well, I think I understand and approve of the reasons: it's so packages 
can get tested properly before you run them on your 'stable' server.

And they backport security fixes, so you get the best of both worlds, 
generally.

If you want latest features, run 'testing' or 'unstable'.



--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Simo Sorce 
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 19:38, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> Oddly enough, I got oplock problems when I upgraded from 2.2.3a-6 to 
> 2.2.3a-12, whereupon I filed a bug and downgraded.
> 
> The Debian maintainer assured me nothing had been done but security 
> backports; so I upgraded again and crossed my fingers.  I just noticed I 
> got some oplock errors day before yesterday, so time to downgrade again 
> and watch.

I can't not understand with debian cannot update packeges that are in
the stable version ... but that's a debian problem not samba related ...

-- 
Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Simo Sorce wrote:

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 09:48, Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote:


Hi all,

I really know you'll tell me it is not an issue from Samba nor a matter 
of topic in this list.

But. I have problems with oplocks, surely because of my version:
Version 2.2.3a-12 for Debian I noticed it all in bug 26128 and posted 
here precisions, few days ago.

Version 2.2.3a-12!!!??? YES, this is the *stable* version from Debian.


And it may contain lot of fixes that are in newer samba releases.
I'm not saying they do, but I've seen a number of vendors that fixes
packages but maintain older version to keep dependencies toward other
packeags or such.


What Debian actually did was backport the security fixes in 2.2.7 into 
2.2.3a-12 (they weren't present in 2.2.3a-6).



What would I do? Install newer version (2.2.7,afaik), then corrupt my 
system? Or wait for Samba team to put 2.2.7 in the stable?


with 2.2.7a you will not corrupt your system, however it seem strange
debian does not upgrade to 2.2.7a as from 2.2.2-2.2.6 there a possible
security problem, have you the security team url in your apt source
list?


See above.

Oddly enough, I got oplock problems when I upgraded from 2.2.3a-6 to 
2.2.3a-12, whereupon I filed a bug and downgraded.

The Debian maintainer assured me nothing had been done but security 
backports; so I upgraded again and crossed my fingers.  I just noticed I 
got some oplock errors day before yesterday, so time to downgrade again 
and watch.


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread John H Terpstra 
JP,

(Thanks to Jerry Carter for pointing out the following omission in my last
reply to you)

You should also be aware that two (2) samba team members actively maintain
Samba packaging. You will find it under samba-2.2.7a/packaging/Debian, and
you can use this to build a Debian comliant samba package.

- John T.

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I really know you'll tell me it is not an issue from Samba nor a matter
> of topic in this list.
>
> But. I have problems with oplocks, surely because of my version:
> Version 2.2.3a-12 for Debian I noticed it all in bug 26128 and posted
> here precisions, few days ago.
>
> Version 2.2.3a-12!!!??? YES, this is the *stable* version from Debian.
>
> What would I do? Install newer version (2.2.7,afaik), then corrupt my
> system? Or wait for Samba team to put 2.2.7 in the stable?
>
> For example, in current proposed-updates, samba version proposed is
> 2.2.3a-12!! I think I'll have to wait a year before 2.2.7 becomes
> stable, then you'll be supporting only version 2.4 ? :-)
>
> I really know again it is *not* the problem of Samba team.
>
> But, I think when I read docs "always install newest version before
> asking to support", you put to rubbish all users who havent yet
> connexion to internet, or ones who just buy brand new RH, Mandrake,
> Suse, whatever, box, with surely not the latest Samba version in  :-(
>
> What are my solutions then? Build my own deb package from your cvs?
> Thats what I'm gonna do finally, corrupting a bit my stable production
> debian server :-/
>
> I'd really like you give your point of view on this.
>
> Thanks a lot for your efforts!
>
>

-- 
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

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Gerald (Jerry) Carter 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, John H Terpstra wrote:

> Your question is one many samba users have to deal with. Debian Linux is
> user supported software, so if you want samba to always be up to date,
> volunteer to become the samba maintainer for Debian, then you will
> control you own destiny.
> 
> If becoming the samba maintainer for Debian does not suit you, that's
> OK. But now if you want an up to date version of samba for Debian you
> will need to build your own.

Ummm...just to clarify, Eloy and Steve always submit the bedian packaging
so you can roll you own deb from the Samba source tarball.  See 
packaging/Debian for details.




cheers, jerry
 --
 Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com
 SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org
 GnuPG Key   http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
 ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed
 "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there."  
--John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQE9+h/KIR7qMdg1EfYRAm07AJ9c9NmeYtt1J666M5QiAe25OXjWiwCeJG+1
lP+5MadAWbAZy4FDvIj6m2E=
=p4x6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread John H Terpstra 
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote:

JP,

Your question is one many samba users have to deal with. Debian Linux is
user supported software, so if you want samba to always be up to date,
volunteer to become the samba maintainer for Debian, then you will control
you own destiny.

If becoming the samba maintainer for Debian does not suit you, that's OK.
But now if you want an up to date version of samba for Debian you will
need to build your own.

If building you own does not suit you, then you could hire a consultant
)or find another volunteer) to do it for you.

If, like most of us, you want someone to give you an update package as
soon as a new version comes out, then find a source that will do that. The
choice is yours.

At one time, for every release of Samba I would compile and make available
10 for 10 different platforms. That took me nearly 4 days to build, QA,
release - all unpaid work. I am not after sympathy, just want to make the
point that it takes a lot of work and effort to serve our users fully. The
more people who help the easier it is.

Cheers,
John T.

> Hi all,
>
> I really know you'll tell me it is not an issue from Samba nor a matter
> of topic in this list.
>
> But. I have problems with oplocks, surely because of my version:
> Version 2.2.3a-12 for Debian I noticed it all in bug 26128 and posted
> here precisions, few days ago.
>
> Version 2.2.3a-12!!!??? YES, this is the *stable* version from Debian.
>
> What would I do? Install newer version (2.2.7,afaik), then corrupt my
> system? Or wait for Samba team to put 2.2.7 in the stable?
>
> For example, in current proposed-updates, samba version proposed is
> 2.2.3a-12!! I think I'll have to wait a year before 2.2.7 becomes
> stable, then you'll be supporting only version 2.4 ? :-)
>
> I really know again it is *not* the problem of Samba team.
>
> But, I think when I read docs "always install newest version before
> asking to support", you put to rubbish all users who havent yet
> connexion to internet, or ones who just buy brand new RH, Mandrake,
> Suse, whatever, box, with surely not the latest Samba version in  :-(
>
> What are my solutions then? Build my own deb package from your cvs?
> Thats what I'm gonna do finally, corrupting a bit my stable production
> debian server :-/
>
> I'd really like you give your point of view on this.
>
> Thanks a lot for your efforts!
>
>

-- 
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

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Simo Sorce 
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 09:48, Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I really know you'll tell me it is not an issue from Samba nor a matter 
> of topic in this list.
> 
> But. I have problems with oplocks, surely because of my version:
> Version 2.2.3a-12 for Debian I noticed it all in bug 26128 and posted 
> here precisions, few days ago.
> 
> Version 2.2.3a-12!!!??? YES, this is the *stable* version from Debian.

And it may contain lot of fixes that are in newer samba releases.
I'm not saying they do, but I've seen a number of vendors that fixes
packages but maintain older version to keep dependencies toward other
packeags or such.

> What would I do? Install newer version (2.2.7,afaik), then corrupt my 
> system? Or wait for Samba team to put 2.2.7 in the stable?

with 2.2.7a you will not corrupt your system, however it seem strange
debian does not upgrade to 2.2.7a as from 2.2.2-2.2.6 there a possible
security problem, have you the security team url in your apt source
list?

> For example, in current proposed-updates, samba version proposed is
> 2.2.3a-12!! I think I'll have to wait a year before 2.2.7 becomes 
> stable, then you'll be supporting only version 2.4 ? :-)
> 
> I really know again it is *not* the problem of Samba team.

Not it is not.

> But, I think when I read docs "always install newest version before 
> asking to support", you put to rubbish all users who havent yet 
> connexion to internet, or ones who just buy brand new RH, Mandrake, 
> Suse, whatever, box, with surely not the latest Samba version in  :-(

Well if we know a problem is probably fixed in a later version, what can
we do? We cannot do anything else that asking to upgrade to check it is
not something else.

> What are my solutions then? Build my own deb package from your cvs? 
> Thats what I'm gonna do finally, corrupting a bit my stable production 
> debian server :-/

you do not need to build them out of cvs, we release packages in tar
format, and you should really use them, cvs *may* contain new errors as
we may be committing in steps a fix or something else while you cvs
update and you do not notice.

> I'd really like you give your point of view on this.

I generally use what the distribution provides.
But if necessary I also install my custom packages (and I always build
packages, as that way I have a trace in my system of what I've done
exactly. To my customers I installed things like:
samba-2.2.7pre2-xsec1.rpm/deb (Xsec is my company and pre2 never
existed, I made it as I needed a special fix that was only in cvs).

> Thanks a lot for your efforts!

Thank you,
Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce-  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Samba Team-  http://www.samba.org
Italian Site  -  http://samba.xsec.it
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-13 Thread Jean-Paul ARGUDO 
Hi all,

I really know you'll tell me it is not an issue from Samba nor a matter 
of topic in this list.

But. I have problems with oplocks, surely because of my version:
Version 2.2.3a-12 for Debian I noticed it all in bug 26128 and posted 
here precisions, few days ago.

Version 2.2.3a-12!!!??? YES, this is the *stable* version from Debian.

What would I do? Install newer version (2.2.7,afaik), then corrupt my 
system? Or wait for Samba team to put 2.2.7 in the stable?

For example, in current proposed-updates, samba version proposed is
2.2.3a-12!! I think I'll have to wait a year before 2.2.7 becomes 
stable, then you'll be supporting only version 2.4 ? :-)

I really know again it is *not* the problem of Samba team.

But, I think when I read docs "always install newest version before 
asking to support", you put to rubbish all users who havent yet 
connexion to internet, or ones who just buy brand new RH, Mandrake, 
Suse, whatever, box, with surely not the latest Samba version in  :-(

What are my solutions then? Build my own deb package from your cvs? 
Thats what I'm gonna do finally, corrupting a bit my stable production 
debian server :-/

I'd really like you give your point of view on this.

Thanks a lot for your efforts!

--
Jean-Paul ARGUDO

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-12 Thread jra 
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 03:40:27PM -0600, Sam Barasch wrote:
> 
> Anyway, I ask every year for the department to send me to the Samba 
> conference - is it going to be in Germany again?

Yes, Volker is arranging it as he did such a good job last year :-).

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-12 Thread Sam Barasch 
Yeah, we've got kind of a big system too - our one samba server provides 
services for users in three buildings on campus, and no one from our 
support team (about 7 end-user support staff members) has heard of any 
oplock problems since our upgrade.

It could be that something else has changed, network-infrastructure-wise , 
but I really doubt it.

Anyway, I ask every year for the department to send me to the Samba 
conference - is it going to be in Germany again?

At 08:33 PM 12/12/2002 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:27:26PM -0600, Sam Barasch wrote:
> About two months ago our sysadmin upgraded to samba 2.2.7 and we have not
> had any oplock problems since.
>
> A heartfelt thanks from the University of Wisconsin in Madison to the 
Samba
> team for all their hard work.
>
> If our hundreds of users understood what was going on behind the scenes,
> they'd be thanking you too.

Wow - thanks ! I only ever hear about problems people have with oplocks
so it's occasionally nice to hear the code actually *does* work :-) :-).

Thanks,

Jeremy.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and samba 2.2.7

2002-12-12 Thread jra 
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:27:26PM -0600, Sam Barasch wrote:
> About two months ago our sysadmin upgraded to samba 2.2.7 and we have not 
> had any oplock problems since.
> 
> A heartfelt thanks from the University of Wisconsin in Madison to the Samba 
> team for all their hard work.
> 
> If our hundreds of users understood what was going on behind the scenes, 
> they'd be thanking you too.

Wow - thanks ! I only ever hear about problems people have with oplocks
so it's occasionally nice to hear the code actually *does* work :-) :-).

Thanks,

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and pagemaker files

2002-12-03 Thread Riviera Adm - Marcelo Oliveira da Costa 
Recently I post to this  list about with the subject Clipper+Samba and was
helped by list.
See the answers that follow attached.

Regards,

Marcelo Oliveira

- Original Message -
From: "Chris McKeever" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:18 PM
Subject: [Samba] oplocks and pagemaker files


> SuSE 7.2, Samba 2.2.6
> User plaform WIN98se
>
> Was wondering if someone could point me to information regarding oplocks
(I
> read the man on smb.conf regarding that and level2 oplocks)...
>
> I needed to set oplocks = no  and level2 oplocks = no in order for them to
> be able to open pagemaker files from the samba server...otherwise it would
> say 'can not open file'
>
> I am just trying to get a grip on oplocks, what it is used for, how
setting
> it to no affects the performance, and why I needed to set it to no
>
> Thanks
>
>

--- Begin Message ---



I have 
be developing in Clipper for over 15 years and installing and supporting 
Linux/Samba systems for a couple of years now.  I would suggest you upgrade 
your samba to the latest version for starters.  Please view http://www.Drouillard.ca/Tips&Tricks/Samba/Oplocks.htm for 
a very comprehensive answer on what needs to be done for Clipper and Samba to 
work beautifully together.

Regards-Gerald 
DrouillardOwner and ConsultantDrouillard & Associates, Inc.http://www.Drouillard.ca

  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Riviera Adm - Marcelo 
  Oliveira da CostaSent: Friday, November 29, 2002 6:44 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [Samba] Samba + 
  Clipper
  Hello for all !
   
  We use a samba server 2.2.1a with conectiva 7 [ 
  kernel 2.4.18] and have the most important system of enterprise in 
  clipper.
  In begin we have many problems with index 
  corruption and clipper system freezes
  Then we turned off oplocks and 
  level2oplocks and found peace.
  But sometimes the system until freeze in one 
  station and this freeze others stations too.
  When clipper system is closed in the first 
  freezed station, the others return to normality.
  The softhouse that was developer clipper system 
  say:
   
  * linux and samba is the problem 
  
  > he don't know nothing about linux 
  
  * network bandwidth is the problem [100 
  and 10 Mbit/s]
  > maybe ...
  * server is the problem [ Compaq ML330G2 : PIII 
  1GHz, 256, 18GB SCSI, 100Mbit/s only file server for 33 clients 
  ]
  > I don't believe in this ...
   
  Our major DBF has 65MB and the major NSX has 
  18MB.
  I think that is big and the problem is it, 
   but system developer say that isn't.
   
  I don't want to come back to NT4, where the 
  clipper system too crash.
   
  Resume: Where I can find 
  information about samba and clipper systems ?
   
  Thank you for read about my problem.
  Sorry for the grammar and others errors, but I 
  don't know english very well.
   
  Marcelo Oliveira da Costa
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Bertioga - Sao Paulo - Brasil
   
   
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:43:49AM -0200, Riviera Adm - Marcelo Oliveira da Costa 
wrote:
> Hello for all !
> 
> We use a samba server 2.2.1a with conectiva 7 [ kernel 2.4.18] and have the most 
>important system of enterprise in clipper.
> In begin we have many problems with index corruption and clipper system freezes
> Then we turned off oplocks and level2oplocks and found peace.
> But sometimes the system until freeze in one station and this freeze others stations 
>too.
> When clipper system is closed in the first freezed station, the others return to 
>normality.

Upgrade. There have been so many changes between 2.2.1a and 2.2.7
in this area we need to make sure you're on a version containing
the latest fixes else we'll be tracking down bugs we've already fixed.

Jeremy.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 05:43  AM, Riviera Adm - Marcelo Oliveira da Costa wrote:

Then we turned off oplocks and level2oplocks and found peace.
But sometimes the system until freeze in one station and this freeze others stations too.
When clipper system is closed in the first freezed station, the others return to normality.

This sounds like a locking issue.  What locking related options do you have set in smb.conf?

Also consider the possibility of a network hardware issue (bad network card, bad cabling, bad hub).  Test performance using a tool like a 'flood ping' on your Linux server to some of the problem clients. As root, run 'ping -f x.x.x.x' and see what percentage of packets (if any) are dropped after you let it run a little while. Press Ctrl-C to stop the test

I use dBASE files that are several hundreds of MB's in size (total size of almost 1GB in about 8 dBASE tables).   Application performance is acceptable on both 10BaseT and 100BaseTX LAN segments - although you can notice a difference on the 100Mbps segments certainly.

Locking options I use

Re: [Samba] Oplocks problem

2002-11-21 Thread Baxter Shepperson 
Dominic Saindon wrote:


Hi,

I use version 2.2.2 of Samba on Solaris 8 and I have the following problem:

From a working station which uses a connection modem (56 kbps) towards the

server to reach to a network drive and with the following configuration
under smb.conf:
[dgui]
   comment = mir:/grp/in4mix/DGUI
   path = /grp/in4mix/DGUI
   valid users = @in4mix
   force group = in4mix
   read only = No
   create mask = 0775
   directory mask = 0775
   oplocks = No

A file of 6k on the server is transferred with 300k additional when
OPLOCKS=NO. But when OPLOCKS=YES, there is really 6k transferred.
How can I regulate this problem to use option OPLOCKS=NO but what the
transfer is faster?
Thanks.
_/\___
Dominic Saindon
Analyste en système

COGNICASE (Canada) inc.
2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 240
Sherbrooke (Québec)  J1J 2E8
Tél. : (819) 564-1199, poste 2282
Téléc. : (819) 564-0868

Courriel : [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 I get the same problem on my home network w/ an HP Laserjet.  Worked 
fine but I commented out the line anyway.  No change whatsoever.  I'd 
leave it alone if it works on an enterprise network, if I were you.


--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and share modes

2002-10-28 Thread Mac 
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frank_K=FCster_geb=2E_F=FCrst?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Samba] oplocks and share modes
>Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 17:49:50 +
>
>On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 07:51:13PM +0200, Frank Küster geb. Fürst wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, thanks. Just one more question: For which versions does this apply?
>> All IRIX 6.5.x versions I assume? And as for Linux, any 2.4.x kernel, or
>> does it depend on the configuration?
>
>I think it's IRIX 6.5.2f - Herb can you confirm ? For Linux, it's the
>2.4.x kernels - but many of the earlier kernels had bugs. Ensure you're
>at 2.4.18 or above I think.


The copy of the 'Samba for IRIX' sales sheet that I have from SGI (dated
12/98) agrees with you.  IRIX 6.5.2f or later for kernel oplock
support.


   Mac
  Assistant Systems Adminstrator @nibsc.ac.uk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Work: +44 1707 641000 x285  Everything else: +44 7956 237670 (anytime)
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and share modes

2002-10-27 Thread jra 
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 07:51:13PM +0200, Frank Küster geb. Fürst wrote:
> John Gerth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 
> > Unless the kernel is "oplock aware" (SGI IRIX and Linux are
> > the only two UNIXes that are at the moment) 
> [...]
> > Hope this is clear :-).
> 
> Yes, thanks. Just one more question: For which versions does this apply?
> All IRIX 6.5.x versions I assume? And as for Linux, any 2.4.x kernel, or
> does it depend on the configuration?

I think it's IRIX 6.5.2f - Herb can you confirm ? For Linux, it's the
2.4.x kernels - but many of the earlier kernels had bugs. Ensure you're
at 2.4.18 or above I think.

Jeremy.
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and share modes

2002-10-27 Thread Frank Küster geb. Fürst 
John Gerth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

> Unless the kernel is "oplock aware" (SGI IRIX and Linux are
> the only two UNIXes that are at the moment) 
[...]
> Hope this is clear :-).

Yes, thanks. Just one more question: For which versions does this apply?
All IRIX 6.5.x versions I assume? And as for Linux, any 2.4.x kernel, or
does it depend on the configuration?

TIA, Frank
-- 
Ich habe z.Z. nur einmal pro Tag Netzzugang. Daher kommen meine Antworten 
langsamer als üblich

Frank Küster geb. Fürst

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks and share modes

2002-10-24 Thread John Gerth 
Ok, as promised, a brief explaination of oplocks, share modes
and locking.

When a client opens a file it can request an "oplock" or file
lease. This is (to simplify a bit) a guarentee that no one else
has the file open simultaneously. It allows the client to not
send any updates on the file to the server, thus reducing a
network file access to local access (once the file is in
client cache). An "oplock break" is when the server sends
a request to the client to flush all its changes back to
the server, so the file is in a consistent state for other
opens to succeed. If a client fails to respond to this
asynchronous request then the file can be corrupted. Hence
the "turn off oplocks" answer if people are having multi-user
file access problems.

Unless the kernel is "oplock aware" (SGI IRIX and Linux are
the only two UNIXes that are at the moment) then if a local
UNIX process accesses the file simultaneously then Samba
has no way of telling this is occuring, so the guarentee
to the client is broken. This can corrupt the file. Short
answer - it you have UNIX clients accessing the same file
as smbd locally or via NFS and you're not running Linux or
IRIX then turn off oplocks for that file or share.

"Share modes". These are modes of opening a file, that
guarentee an invarient - such as DENY_WRITE - which means
that if any other opens are requested with write access after
this current open has succeeded then they should be denied
with a "sharing violation" error message. Samba handles these
internally inside smbd. UNIX clients accessing the same file
ignore these invarients. Just proving that if you need simultaneous
file access from a Windows and UNIX client you *must* have an
application that is written to lock records correctly on both
sides. Few applications are written like this, and even fewer
are cross platform (UNIX and Windows) so in practice this isn't
much of a problem.

"Locking". This really means "byte range locking" - such as
lock 10 bytes at file offset 24 for write access. This is the
area in which well written UNIX and Windows apps will cooperate.
Windows locks (at least from NT or above) are 64-bit unsigned
offsets. UNIX locks are either 31 bit or 63 bit and are signed
(the top bit is used for the sign). Samba handles these by
first ensuring that all the Windows locks don't conflict (ie.
if other Windows clients have competing locks then just reject
immediately) - this allows us to support 64-bit Windows locks
on 32-bit filesystems. Secondly any locks that are valid are
then mapped onto UNIX fcntl byte range locks. These are the
locks that will be seen by UNIX processes. If there is a conflict
here the lock is rejected.

Note that if a client has an oplock then it "knows" that no
other client can have the file open so usually doesn't bother
to send to lock request to the server - this means once again
if you need to share files between UNIX and Windows processes
either use IRIX or Linux, or turn off oplocks for these
files/shares.

Hope this is clear :-).

Jeremy.

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

Re: [Samba] oplocks

2002-09-30 Thread Gerald Carter 

On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Knox wrote:

> [2002/09/26 08:52:08, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(813)
>   oplock_break: no break received from client within 30 seconds.
>   oplock_break failed for file xx.doc (dev = 12b, inode = 4832).
> [2002/09/26 08:52:08, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(859)
>   oplock_break: client failure in oplock break in file yyy.doc
> [2002/09/26 08:52:08, 0] smbd/reply.c:reply_lockingX(4413)
>   reply_lockingX: Error : oplock break from client for fnum = 8253 and no
> oplock granted on this file (zz.doc).

This sounds like a queueing bug we fixed (post 2.2.5?).  Can you retest
against 2.2.6pre2





cheers, jerry
 -
 Hewlett-Packard http://www.hp.com
 SAMBA Team   http://www.samba.org
 --http://www.plainjoe.org
 "Sams Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed.   ISBN 0-672-32269-2
 --"I never saved anything for the swim back." Ethan Hawk in Gattaca--

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba