:40 PM
> To: Volker Lendecke
> Cc: Ralf G. R. Bergs; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning of
> "tdb_free: left read failed at ...?"
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:50:50AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> >
> >
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:50:50AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
>
> P.S: I might be wrong, but I'm not sure whether the spinlock code ever actually
> worked. Jeremy?
Yes they did work and were tested at one stage, but bit-rot may
have occurred since then.
Jeremy.
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:50:50 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
[...]
>you do not have a *very* good reason to enable them, could you please retry
>without spinlocks?
Ok, I'm just recompiling Samba without spinlock support.
Obviously I have to wait until this night so that the fileserver becomes less
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> I guess I should have defined CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK when compiling my
> kernel since I also configured Samba with "--with-spinlocks":
Ok, this might explain it. Spinlocks are definitely a less tested part of the
code. I h
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 19:34:16 -0600 (CST), Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>
>> What exactly does that mean? I compiled Samba with large file support.
>> Was this an error? I absolutely NEED large-file support. (To recap, this
>> is under Debian/GNU Linux/i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> What exactly does that mean? I compiled Samba with large file support.
> Was this an error? I absolutely NEED large-file support. (To recap, this
> is under Debian/GNU Linux/i386 3.0, running kernel 2.4.20
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:37:17 -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
>> Why should Samba be the ONLY (apparent) application that doesn't feel hap=
>py with=20
>> XFS over EVMS?
>
>I'm running Samba on XFS+EVMS (on Debian ;) with no problems. Even on
>buggy versions of XFS, I've never seen this error;
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> >> The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is
> >> 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in
> use
> >> fo
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back
> again. :-(
Thanks nevertheless. As one resort, could you try
use mmap = no
Volker
msg05756/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back again.
> :-(
>
> So you could argue, "Ok, it's EVMS then which is the culprit," because
> filesystem is on an EVMS logical volume.
>
> But I simply cannot
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> The system in question is a Debian i386 "stable" (3.0) system, kernel is
>> 2.4.20 release (with some patches such as EVMS and XFS, but EVMS is NOT in
use
>> for shares exported via Samba!!), Samba is 2.2.7a (a Debian package that I
>> c
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:20:26 -0600 (CST), Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
[...]
>Looks like the tdb went over the 4Gb line. As a quick work around,
>Stop nmbd; rm /var/run/samba/unexpected.tdb; and start nmbd back up.
No, this has never been a work-around. The problem comes up again VERY quickly.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> since I upgraded our fileserver running Debian 3.0/i386 with Samba 2.2.7a (a
> package I created myself) I'm seeing the following messages in syslog:
>
> Jan 28 14:55:50 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/01/
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 15:44:18 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 15:58, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
>> >> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb
>> >> >it does not hold any vital information.
>> >>
>> >> The problem has reappeare
On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 15:58, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> >> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb
> >> >it does not hold any vital information.
> >>
> >> The problem has reappeared even after I removed the above file:
> >>
> >> Feb 2 11:18
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 14:47:11 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> >you can try to delete unexpected.tdb
>> >it does not hold any vital information.
>>
>> The problem has reappeared even after I removed the above file:
>>
>> Feb 2 11:18:29 Fileserver nmbd[22451]: [2003/02/02 11:18:29, 0]
>> tdb/tdbutil.
Hi there,
I can't believe that NO-ONE of you tech guys can comment on this?!
Thanks,
Ralf
= 8x ==
Hi there,
since I upgraded our fileserver running Debian 3.0/i386 with Samba 2.2.7a (a
package I created myself) I'm seeing the following messages
17 matches
Mail list logo
