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 bit offset range? If I'm not mistaken, I believe that was the default behavior in the 2.2 series, and looks like it changed in 3.0.0 (at least in my tests on linux 2.4.x with glibc 2.2). Many thanks, Thomas On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 18:24, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > 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 places. Firstly, it is used to mirror > SMB locks, asked for by the client. Secondly they are used to mediate > access to tdbs. > > Spinlocks are an alternative (if much less reliable) method for tdb > mediation. > > 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. > > The nasty performance issues in Solaris are due to bad fcntl() lock > contention performance in Samba's TDB access. > > Andrew Bartlett > > -- > Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Student Network Administrator, Hawker College [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net > ---- > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
