Hi folks, Here are two interesting related questions. Well, I think they're interesting anyway. :)
My VFP 9 SP 1 application, running on individual users' workstations, uses native Foxpro tables and a DBC on a Linux (CentOS) file server via SAMBA with OPLOCKS off. When the last user logs off, the application automatically copies the tables and database files from one directory to another directory on the Linux box, using the VFP COPY FILE command. If I attempt to copy the same files from both Linux directories (the ones being copied FROM and TO by my application) to a thumbdrive on my workstation, using Windows Explorer, while this is going on, I will eventually get a Windows "sharing violation" error. This makes sense, but I only get this error on the file in the TO directory, not the FROM directory. First question: Why does the sharing violation only occur on the TO file, not the FROM file? Meanwhile, I have a separate VFP 9 SP 1 maintenance application running on my workstation that works with the same files on the Linux box. One of the things this maintenance application does is a data integrity check; it attempts to open each table via a USE command and reports an error if this fails. If the sharing violation as described above occured while this maintenance application is running, when it later attempts the data integrity check it will throw a spurious "[file] missing or invalid" eror on the .cdx or .fpt file associated with the file that threw the sharing violation. Note: this occurs when the data integrity check runs several seconds or minutes AFTER I've stopped the attempted Windows Explorer copy operation that caused the sharing violation. And the error is definitely spurious; the index and memo files are present and undamaged. TABLEVALIDATE is set to whatever the VFP 9 default is in my maintenance application. Why does this happen? (Note: I know I should avoid copying files to my thumb drive while the application backup is running. Problem is, due to a very slow segment on my network, sometimes the backup procedure takes longer than I expect. I plan to rectify this hardware issue, but I'd like to be able to address this problem in code in case it happens at other sites.) Thanks very much for any insights. Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/4.3.2.7.1.20090227084213.00c48...@localhost ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
