On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:16:34PM +0000, Vogel, Sven wrote: > Hi Volker, > > you wrote that ist not so good to set locking = no, why ist hat so?
SMB semantics require mandatory locking. If a lock is set, read/write on that region will fail. Applications do depend on this. With locking=no you don't do that. > i thought > > ctdb (locking)--> dlm_controld (locking) or gfs_controld (locking) > > so when i disable locking in samba i dont know how will > this presented to the cluster file system? I thought the > cluster file system will use the locks like this below. > > Ctdb(locking=no) --> gfs2 (locking) The mapping to GFS is completely controlled by "posix locking". ctdb has no business in that, it is only responsible for Samba-internal databases. Volker -- SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9 AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen http://www.sernet.de, mailto:[email protected] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
