Andrew Bartlett wrote:
oplocks do not override fcntl locks - but clients that have successfully
gained an oplock might not ask for an SMB lock, and therefore Samba
might not attempt to gain the matching fcntl() lock.
Would strict locking avoid that locking hole by setting the fcntl lock
upon
Let me the try to communicate in a different way.
The only thing I want to know if byte range locks
or file share reservation are propagated to or from UNIX.
That is:
a) When a external program is doing a byte range lock through
fcntl on file, will that be checked before Samba is
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:11:07PM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
Let me the try to communicate in a different way.
The only thing I want to know if byte range locks
or file share reservation are propagated to or from UNIX.
That is:
a) When a external program is doing a byte range
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 07:46:11AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
Yes, your are wright. But Samba will not
do a byte ranged lock using fcntl() on the file
when lock range is below 2^31 as stated in the docs.
No, you've got it wrong (I *wrote* the mapping code). Samba checks
a lock request
Well, you should know.
But if Samba is doing byte ranged lock using fcntl, then
I don't understand why my tests failed.
The first test I did was:
I simulated a NFS client and did byte range lock on a file,
a document in this case 8K in size, and tried to open that from
client using Samba and it
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:39:01AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
Well, you should know.
But if Samba is doing byte ranged lock using fcntl, then
I don't understand why my tests failed.
The first test I did was:
I simulated a NFS client and did byte range lock on a file,
a document in
Hallo Jeremy,
You're confusing share modes with byte range locks. Read up on share
modes - smbstatus doesn't report byte range locks, only share modes.
Until you understand the difference we're not really communicating :-). At
all :-).
if smbstatus could show byte range locks, the
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:11:48PM +0100, Thomas Bork wrote:
Hallo Jeremy,
You're confusing share modes with byte range locks. Read up on share
modes - smbstatus doesn't report byte range locks, only share modes.
Until you understand the difference we're not really communicating :-).
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:25:25AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
The things that tricked me was that I read the docs
for Samba 3 regarding locks.
And it says in the third paragraph in section 14.2
Samba 2.2 and above implements record locking completely independent
of the underlying
Yes, your are wright. But Samba will not
do a byte ranged lock using fcntl() on the file
when lock range is below 2^31 as stated in the docs.
/Patrik
On tis, 2004-02-10 at 00:22, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:25:25AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
The things that
The things that tricked me was that I read the docs
for Samba 3 regarding locks.
And it says in the third paragraph in section 14.2
Samba 2.2 and above implements record locking completely independent
of the underlying UNIX system. If a byte range lock that the client
requests happens to fall
Hi,
If I get this wright is that Samba will not use
a direct call to fcnl() to lock the file.
IE:
If a PC open a file and do lock that file, will that
lock be propagated so other application on the server can see that
file is locked by calling fcntl().
/Patrik
On lör, 2004-01-31 at 01:24,
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 20:29, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
If I get this wright is that Samba will not use
a direct call to fcnl() to lock the file.
IE:
If a PC open a file and do lock that file, will that
lock be propagated so other application on the server can see that
file is locked
Let me be more specific of what I am trying to do.
I am the engineer at Sun that wrote the cluster agent for
Samba, a standard HA agent.
This works as a dream and is deployed on several clusters
around the world.
Now, I am doing study to see if the standard samba can be run
as a scalable
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:14:31AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
Let me be more specific of what I am trying to do.
I am the engineer at Sun that wrote the cluster agent for
Samba, a standard HA agent.
This works as a dream and is deployed on several clusters
around the world.
Now, I
Hello,
I have a question to tack on to this one --
How would I go about compiling Samba such that it either didn't pass
locking requests (for file shares, not TDB's) to fcntl() and just
handled these locks internally for the Windows clients, or at least did
that for locks requested in the 32-64
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:26:01PM -0600, Thomas Hannan wrote:
Hello,
I have a question to tack on to this one --
How would I go about compiling Samba such that it either didn't pass
locking requests (for file shares, not TDB's) to fcntl() and just
handled these locks internally for the
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:12:16PM -0600, Thomas Hannan wrote:
This is exactly the case -- I want it to NOT pass down a 64 bit lock to
fcntl but it does. I unfortunately have no alternative but to re-export
an NFS mount (v3 on linux), and have tried to make it fail the configure
test for 64
The builds themselves are done in an NFS mount
ls -l :
/usr/local/src/samba-3.0.1 - /var/archive/globauth/samba-3.0.1
mount :
triton:/var/archive on /var/archive type nfs
(rw,vers=3,wsize=16384,rsize=16384,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.50)
could it possibly be executing the tests in /tmp, or maybe
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 23:55, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
Hi,
Maybe this is a stupid question, but any way
Will samba use fcntl locking if level 1 and 2 oplocks is
disabled and samba is not compiled with spin-locks enabled ?
I am using Samba on solaris
Samba uses fcntl() locking in two
20 matches
Mail list logo
