On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:02:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:38:55AM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:14:41PM -0700, Marc Jacobsen wrote: > > > [ ... ] > > > Similarly, record locks and share mode locks from SMB clients are both > > > ignored by NFS clients/other UNIX processes (with the possible exception > > > of newer Linux systems, they might actually enforce share mode locks). > > > In theory this could also cause corruption, although in practice it is > > > almost never an issue. > > > I have read in the docs that Samba locks and Unix locks > > _DO_ notice each other, with the caveats that Unix lock > > daemons are sometimes buggy and that Unix locks can only > > lock the first 2^31 bytes of a file. > > > Please tell me that they do in fact notice each other. > > Oplocks are not part of the traditional lock semantics available on > Unix. If you aren't running a kernel (Irix or Linux) that implements > oplocks, you MUST NOT use oplocks if the files will be accessed by > applications other than Samba.
Don't confure the two. Oplocks are nothing to do with share modes or byte range locks. They're just unfortunately named. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
