Michael Heydon wrote:
Jack Lauman wrote:
<snip>
I compared the open files with one computer in Lacerte vs. two
computers in Lacerte and noticed one thing peculiar: when one computer
is using Lacerte, all files are opened with exclusive+batch oplocks
including Data1i07.dbf, however when 2 computers are running Lacerte, a
few files open without oplocks, notably data1i07.dbf.
I'm assuming that both users need to write to these files? Maybe I'm
missing something but this seems to be entirely expected behaviour.
Oplocks allow a client to cache data rather than having to constantly
sync to the server, obviously if there is more than one client doing
this things break.
You could use fake oplocks to grant oplocks to all clients, but unless
the application is designed for it (which I doubt it is) you will just
wind up corrupting your data.
If the application is regularly opening and closing files (and
therefore possibly being granted oplocks and then having them broken)
you might find that performance improves by disabling oplocks
altogether (well, performance for multiple users, performance for a
single user would suffer).
<snip> I've attached both files to this message. Any help in
resolving this
matter would be greatly appreciated.
I think the list strips non-text attachments, so no excel file. Not
that I think it's terribly important since it sounds like your system
is working exactly as it should.
Thanks,
Jack Lauman
*Michael Heydon - IT Administratorr *
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Just a thought, but if you're using an enterprise distro, you might be
able to cheat the system by granting fake oplocks and using a
distributed file system, but there still could be coherency and race
conditions under some circumstances. It would probably depend on your
usage patterns for the application as to whether you could push the
envelope and get away with it. If your access is mostly write once and
read thereafter, it might be alright. YMMV.
I've always had issues with Office 2000 and multiple users. You can
almost feel the whiplash of Access or Excel slowing down the moment a
second connection is established. Though, I must admit, I've never had
corruption due to concurrent access, so it at least works for the speed
trade-off. Unless the app slows down to a crawl, it's probably better
safe than sorry. Especially if you're potentially rolling a corrupted
file in to your backups.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
