Haha... No problem! ;)
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 05:57 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 02:54:37PM +0100, S. J. van Harmelen wrote:
> > Yes! Many thanks Daniel!!
> >
> > Adding "kernel oplocks = no" saved the day :)
>
> Ah - it was *that* bug - sorry :-). The Linux
> kernel st
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 02:54:37PM +0100, S. J. van Harmelen wrote:
> Yes! Many thanks Daniel!!
>
> Adding "kernel oplocks = no" saved the day :)
Ah - it was *that* bug - sorry :-). The Linux
kernel started sending a SIGIO instead
of a POSIX RT signal for oplock break. I think
it's fixed now.
So
Yes! Many thanks Daniel!!
Adding "kernel oplocks = no" saved the day :)
Thanks...
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 14:43 +0100, Beschorner Daniel wrote:
> The Linux kernels 2.6.17 - 2.6.17.11 have a bug with kernel oplocks that
> hits Samba and shows your symptoms.
> "kernel oplocks = no" may solve it.
>
The Linux kernels 2.6.17 - 2.6.17.11 have a bug with kernel oplocks that
hits Samba and shows your symptoms.
"kernel oplocks = no" may solve it.
>It's running with a Linux 2.6.17.8 SMP kernel
> On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 14:25 +0100, Beschorner Daniel wrote:
>> What Linux kernel version you are runn
