Am Mittwoch, 22. August 2007 12:36 schrieb Bernd Schubert:
On Wednesday 22 August 2007 11:43:47 Thomas Flaig wrote:
One potential workaround (no guarantees!) is to say posix
locking = no on the relevant shares.
Here this did not solve the problem (neither with nfs3 nor with
nfs4). :(
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 19:52:08 Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On debian Sarge samba-3.0.22 worked fine, also with posix locking = no,
on Etch windows has problems to store cached data on the end of the
session unless posix locking
Hello,
Am Dienstag, 21. August 2007 17:57 schrieb Volker Lendecke:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:25:21PM +0200, Thomas Flaig wrote:
I would like to have some samba-shares on a nfs-filesystem.
This is not supported.
Is this documented? Or better: Where is this documented?
I have not found hints to
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Thomas Flaig wrote:
Is this documented? Or better: Where is this documented?
I don't know if this is documented, sorry. Where would you
expect it to be documented? It's the same with reiserfs:
Where would you document that reiserfs eats tdb files for
On Wednesday 22 August 2007 11:43:47 Thomas Flaig wrote:
One potential workaround (no guarantees!) is to say posix
locking = no on the relevant shares.
Here this did not solve the problem (neither with nfs3 nor with nfs4). :(
But on the web there are many reports where this was the
Am Mittwoch, 22. August 2007 12:03 schrieb Volker Lendecke:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Thomas Flaig wrote:
Is this documented? Or better: Where is this documented?
I don't know if this is documented, sorry. Where would you
expect it to be documented? It's the same with
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:15:18PM +0200, Thomas Flaig wrote:
Somwhere in a section or file with a title such as limitations or known
bugs[0] or just don't do it!.
Can you send in a patch to the docs? This way you make sure
that it gets in the place where you would expect it.
Thanks,
Volker
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:58:25AM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
Hmm, interesting. If the problem is only byte range locking what
about 'translating' byte range locking into entire file locking?
No. This doesn't have the desired effect and would break most
CIFS client access.
Jeremy.
--
To
Hello,
Actually I have some troubels concerning samba (3.0.24) on debian (4.0):
I would like to have some samba-shares on a nfs-filesystem.
NFS works fine for the Linux clients and the Linux server. The nfs
filesystem is mounted from an other server on /home.
The next step is to set up samba
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:25:21PM +0200, Thomas Flaig wrote:
I would like to have some samba-shares on a nfs-filesystem.
This is not supported. You should install Samba on the NFS
server, and possibly redirect your users using MS-DFS.
One potential workaround (no guarantees!) is to say posix
Hello Volker,
On Tuesday 21 August 2007 17:57:16 Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 05:25:21PM +0200, Thomas Flaig wrote:
I would like to have some samba-shares on a nfs-filesystem.
This is not supported. You should install Samba on the NFS
server, and possibly redirect your
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:31:52PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote:
On debian Sarge samba-3.0.22 worked fine, also with posix locking = no, on
Etch windows has problems to store cached data on the end of the session
unless posix locking = no is set.
So far we never understood what makes the
12 matches
Mail list logo
