On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 06:49:54AM -0400, Green, Paul wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:50:58PM -0700, Matt Seitz wrote:
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > >The only thing would be to completely disallow
> > > >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:50:58PM -0700, Matt Seitz wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >The only thing would be to completely disallow
> > >connection timeouts for Win9x clients - I'm not sure
> > >this is what
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:50:58PM -0700, Matt Seitz wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >The only thing would be to completely disallow
> >connection timeouts for Win9x clients - I'm not sure
> >this is what we want.
>
> Perhaps timeouts could be prevented for a 9x
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>The only thing would be to completely disallow
>connection timeouts for Win9x clients - I'm not sure
>this is what we want.
Perhaps timeouts could be prevented for a 9x client when an oplock is
present? Or have two timeouts: a shorter (sof
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 11:55:50PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> Wouldn't it be neat if we could do _better_ than MS at their own game and somehow
>prevent the
> win9x client bug from getting triggered in case of timeout disconnections?
Neat but I can't think of a way to make it possible.
On
Richard Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Volker Lendecke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andrew Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Samba Technical"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[E
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 07:36:21PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> Please see: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q297684
Ah - this is very interesting, thanks for pointing this out.
Using the registry setting here :
\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\LanmanServer\Parame
ichard Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Samba Technical"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for fixing oplock.c for Linux 2.0 in 2_2 CVS
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:35:38AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:35:38AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:55:20PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:48:27PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > And are you saying that Win2k will never 'idle' a client connection? I'm
> > > sur
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:55:20PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:48:27PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > And are you saying that Win2k will never 'idle' a client connection? I'm
> > sure I've seen smbfs being 'idled' by NT before...
>
> I don't think it ever
gt;
Cc: "Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andrew Bartlett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Richard
Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Samba Technical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 7:55 PM
Subject: Re:
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:48:27PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And are you saying that Win2k will never 'idle' a client connection? I'm
> sure I've seen smbfs being 'idled' by NT before...
I don't think it ever drops the TCP connection on purpose.
Jeremy.
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:43:05PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:10:22AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >
> > Isn't there a way we can 'idle' the connection by tearing down the
> > protocol? Actually issuing a 'you are idle, shutting down' to the
> > client?
>
> N
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:10:22AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
> Isn't there a way we can 'idle' the connection by tearing down the
> protocol? Actually issuing a 'you are idle, shutting down' to the
> client?
Nope - would require a client change I'm afraid. There's nothing
in the protoco
Jeremy Allison wrote:
> It looks like idling a client connection is dangerous to a
> Win98 box, we can only do a work-around for this as the bug
> is in the Win9x client, I'll think some more about this.
Isn't there a way we can 'idle' the connection by tearing down the
protocol? Actually issui
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 05:09:00PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> Stoping the "server" service is a very unusual step. Disconnecting an individual
>connection,
> possibly via idle timeout, is not so unusual and I don't see the same behaviour
>with W2K server
> vs Samba. Something else must
"Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Richard Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Samba Technical"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 4:43 PM
Subje
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 02:05:19PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> Well, I've managed to get this to happen to a W2K server too,
> took me a while though.
>
> It's definately a client bug with the Win9x client, but we seem
> to trigger it all the time whereas Win2k seems to trigger it somet
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:26:00PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> Right... or if it times out because of the dead time setting... so it's shouldn't be
>that rare
> in the wild. I have a feeling that a lot of folks just disable oplocks to avoid the
>"troubles".
> My test at work showed that t
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:26:00PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> Right... or if it times out because of the dead time setting... so it's shouldn't be
>that rare
> in the wild. I have a feeling that a lot of folks just disable oplocks to avoid the
>"troubles".
> My test at work showed that t
TED]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for fixing oplock.c for Linux 2.0 in 2_2 CVS
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 02:05:12PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> OK... time for a brain flush and refill...
>
> I went back and verified my test conditions and determined that
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 02:05:12PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> OK... time for a brain flush and refill...
>
> I went back and verified my test conditions and determined that the same failure can
>be demonstrated
> with every server platform we own running Samba 2.X with oplocks enabled and
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 07:16:07PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> Same exact failure with
> Linux 2.0.38
> Linux 2.2.20
> Linux 2.4.18
> SunOS 5.6
>
> I'll have to let you know Tuesday if it fails with just any old executable... but
>I'd expect it
> would.
Well can you send m
gt;
To: "Richard Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Samba Technical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for fixing oplock.c for Linux 2.0 in 2_2 CVS
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 02:05:12PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> OK... time for a brain flush and refill...
>
> I went back and verified my test conditions and determined that the same failure can
>be demonstrated
> with every server platform we own running Samba 2.X with oplocks enabled and
Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Samba Technical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for fixing oplock.c for Linux 2.0 in 2_2 CVS
>>...
> Well, this is a client failure to respond. The does happen sometimes,
> especially with W
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:00:43AM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> How embarassing... still apparently broken / inconsistent :-(
>
> Client is win98 4.10.1998.
>
> [2002/05/24 08:36:40, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
> smbd version 2.2.5-pre started.
> Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba T
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Richard Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Samba Technical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for fixing oplock.c for Linux 2.0 in 2_2 CVS
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 03:18:04PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> I only ran a quick functionality test ... a very old version of Netbench (2.10). It
>always hung for
> 30 seconds when starting netbench.exe... until the oplock timed out. Seems fine now.
Great ! Thanks - good news. This will
gt;
To: "Richard Bollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Samba Technical" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for fixing oplock.c for Linux 2.0 in 2_2 CVS
>
> That was me :-). So have you CVS checked out and tested the code ?
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 02:56:05PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
> Much thanks and praises to whomever diagnosed and fixed the timing problems with
>linux 2.0 and
> oplocks. On one busy 2.0.38 server, I had seen consistent oplock timeouts...
>especially when
> running an executable DOS progra
31 matches
Mail list logo
