On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 03:34, Michael B. Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:02:59 -0600
> > Um... Just curious, but how are "oplocks are unreliable by definition"?
>
> I wondered what was meant by this too. I concluded it was just a zealous
> choice of words. I believe he means that a) even afte
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 03:34, Michael B. Allen wrote:
> I wondered what was meant by this too. I concluded it was just a zealous
> choice of words. I believe he means that a) even after being granted an
> oplock break the client may still find the file is locked and ultimately
> get a sharing violat
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:02:59 -0600
"Christopher R. Hertel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 02:53:14PM +0100, Olaf Fr?czyk wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 14:42, Ireneusz Piasecki wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I use samba with linux 7.2 kernel 4.7, samba 2.2.1a
> >
> > > Is t
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 02:53:14PM +0100, Olaf Fr?czyk wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 14:42, Ireneusz Piasecki wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I use samba with linux 7.2 kernel 4.7, samba 2.2.1a
>
> > Is there any solution to avoid these errors ??
> >
> > With redhat 6.2 and samba 2.0.2 (?) tehere were n
On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 14:42, Ireneusz Piasecki wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I use samba with linux 7.2 kernel 4.7, samba 2.2.1a
> Is there any solution to avoid these errors ??
>
> With redhat 6.2 and samba 2.0.2 (?) tehere were no errors.
>
Hi,
I had the same problems. Upgrade your samba to 2.2.7a and it
Hi.
I use samba with linux 7.2 kernel 4.7, samba 2.2.1a
I have this in ma station's log: log.irek
[2003/02/17 12:32:07, 0] lib/util_sock.c:read_socket_data(478)
read_socket_data: recv failure for 4. Error = Connection reset by peer
[2003/02/17 12:48:33, 0] lib/util_sock.c:read_socket_data(478
