Hi,
I encountered an interesting problem. We have a Java application on a samba
server. The folder is then shared to the clients via a samba share. So far
it works OK. Until now we had windows clients and everything worked OK. But
now we are trying to migrate to Linux clients and this is where the
Hi,
I encountered an interesting problem. We have a Java application on a samba
server. The folder is then shared to the clients via a samba share. So far
it works OK. Until now we had windows clients and everything worked OK. But
now we are trying to migrate to Linux clients and this is where the
Hi,
I encountered an interesting problem. We have a Java application on a samba
server. The folder is then shared to the clients via a samba share. So far
it works OK. Until now we had windows clients and everything worked OK. But
now we are trying to migrate to Linux clients and this is where the
I wanted to send a final post about this issue. I apologise for not
responding until 2 months later. For those interested, we ended up
just writing our logs to a Samba share that was outside of a Clearcase
share and we had no further issues with files being locked. So
that says that
I wanted to post again with the results of using Samba 3.2.8. Looks
like this did not solve our locking problem. We are still getting
permission denied errors when we try to do a mv of a log file inside
a Clearcase view via a Samba share to a different location. Again,
this is inside a Cygwin
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:24:10PM -0800, Kathy wrote:
I wanted to post again with the results of using Samba 3.2.8. Looks
like this did not solve our locking problem. We are still getting
permission denied errors when we try to do a mv of a log file inside
a Clearcase view via a Samba share
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:24:10PM -0800, Kathy wrote:
I wanted to post again with the results of using Samba 3.2.8. Looks
like this did not solve our locking problem. We are still getting
permission denied errors when we try to do a mv of a log file inside
a Clearcase view via a Samba share
Thanks, Jeremy and Brian for your responses. First Jeremy -- I think
I will first pursue with Brian a solution that uses a version of Samba
that is at least more in line with what IBM has tested with Clearcase,
but if it really does look like the issue is with Samba, I have no
problem at least
We are having some problems in our company's test group that did not
exist when our Clearcase 2003.06 server existed on a Solaris 8
machine. Now we are running on RHEL 5.2 with Clearcase 7.0.1.3 with
Samba 3.0.28 (despite the fact that IBM has only blessed up to 3.0.24)
and running into some file
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Kathy banshee...@gmail.com wrote:
# first statement is old and may not be obsolete but we still keep it
just in case
oplocks = no
kernel oplocks = no
level2 oplocks = no
If you have 'oplocks = no', then it doesn't matter what 'kernel oplocks' or
'level2
Thanks for the reply Rob. That was my assumption that oplocks=no
overrides everything (but put them all in there just in case). The
Samba shares are all related to Clearcase, which is why we have
oplocks definitions under global instead of individual shares.
(Although I suppose the home
Based on what Rob said (and what I'm reading about oplocks in the
Using Samba guide), I decided to put the oplocks = no into each
individual share. I won't know until Monday until the test group
tries some test runs if it makes any difference or not. I was
assuming if in global it would be
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 10:23:57AM -0800, Kathy wrote:
We are having some problems in our company's test group that did not
exist when our Clearcase 2003.06 server existed on a Solaris 8
machine. Now we are running on RHEL 5.2 with Clearcase 7.0.1.3 with
Samba 3.0.28 (despite the fact that
Kathy wrote:
[views]
comment = Flint views
path = /view
read list = @cozcmusr, aramac
write list = @cozcmusr
read only = No
Kathy, I work in ClearCase support, and this construct is not supported
by IBM. It's not a tested configuration. There is a
El Domingo, 24 de Diciembre de 2006 00:24, Chris Barnabo escribió:
Beta has no problem reading the files ... but as soon as it has touched
a file in any way, that file is getting locked so that it can no longer
be written from Alpha OR Beta. E.g. if I make a change to index.html,
look at it
I'm encountering a nasty file locking problem on my development system.
The base system is WinXP SP2 (call it Alpha), on which there is a
shared directory (D:\Websites) on NTFS. Running in a M$ Virtual
Machine session on Alpha is an Ubuntu Linux (6.06) system, call it
Beta. Most of the
I've a situation where file locking does not seem to functioning. I have
the following entries in my smb.conf file:
*** /etc/samba/smb.conf ***
linux # testparm -v | grep lock
Load smb config files from /etc/samba/smb.conf
snip
Warning: Service printers defines a print command, but print
Hi everyone,
like Jeremy wanted, I got a lvl. 10 log from two clients opening the same file.
The log is attached to this eMail (I have just bzipped it to reduce its size).
Thanks in advance for looking over it :)
Ulrik Guenther
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read
Hello everyone,
I have a 50-client Samba installation here (version of Samba is 3.0.12). The
problem is, that files are not locked correctly. The scenario is the following:
1. User A opens a word document file and edits it
2. User B tries to open the same file, too
3. Instead of getting a
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 08:38:59PM +0100, Ulrik Guenther wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have a 50-client Samba installation here (version of Samba is 3.0.12). The
problem is, that files are not locked correctly. The scenario is the
following:
1. User A opens a word document file and edits it
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:56:31AM +0800, Wan Yeok Seng wrote:
But if I use openoffice (in a fedora core workstation) to access the
file in the share first, when I type smbstatus, I am getting a deny none
(readwrite) which is not the intended way. If I open the file from other
workstation
Hi there,
I am facing some file locking problem with samba. Below are the
environment :
OS : Fedora Core 1
Samba version : 3.0.0-15
I have used security = share, oplocks =no, level2 oplocks=no, locking =
yes, strict locking = yes. The detail of the smb.conf can be provided.
The situation is
This may be what you need in your smb.conf:
oplocks = no
level 2 oplocks = no
Look them up via 'man smb.conf'. I believe you can set it either globally or per
share.
Hope that helps :-)
Cameron B. Prince said:
Hi,
I have a situation in the office where I temporarily need to provide
Hi,
I have a situation in the office where I temporarily need to provide
additional clients access to a share on a Windows 2000 Professional box.
2000 Pro seems to only allow 5 clients to connect to a share and there is no
faclity to allow more as best I can tell. Upgrading isn't really an option
I don't know what kind of programm you're running, but I had nearly the
problem. I solved it by turning of the oplocks for this share.
Try in the share:
[C]
comment = C On Doveserver
path = /mnt/samba
public = yes
writable = yes
create mask = 0775
Hi Sascha,
You nailed it... My problem is solved. I don't understand why that would be
desired behavior, but regardless, it's fixed now.
Thank you very much,
Cameron
I don't know what kind of programm you're running, but I had
nearly the problem. I solved it by turning of the oplocks for
Hi There,
I'm running Samba 2.2.8a and I think I'm having problems with Samba's
file locking mechanism.
These are the files and modes that I'm trying to open from a dos
application. The program freezes for about 5 minutes, then continues to
run without loading the necessary files into memory.
Hi,
I'm having a strange problem today with samba 2.2.7.
Samba is reporting that one of our users has locked a file. I have asked him
to reboot his machine and stopped and restarted the smb daemon. The file
remains locked. I have also tried to kill the pid of the samba process
associated with the
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Kris Kelley wrote:
About a month ago, the email inbox directory for one parituclar user
experienced a curious problem where the last (most recent) message file
in the directory became locked. Any attempt to move or rename the
file resulted in error messages like these:
29 matches
Mail list logo
