Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
Andrew Bartlett wrote: 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. Would strict locking avoid that locking hole by setting the fcntl lock upon giving an oplock? -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
Let me the try to communicate in a different way. The only thing I want to know if byte range locks or file share reservation are propagated to or from UNIX. That is: a) When a external program is doing a byte range lock through fcntl on file, will that be checked before Samba is opening the file ? My findings tells me it does. b) When a external program is doing file share reservation through on a file fcntl will that be checked before Samba is opening the file ? My findings tells me it don't. The test-program did file share reservation through fcntl on file with the parameters: f_access=F_RWACC (Set a file share reservation for read and write access) f_deny=F_RWDNY (Set a file share reservation to deny read and write) The client could through Samba open and write in that file. c) If/When Samba is doing a byte range lock on file will that byte range lock be propagated externaly to UNIX ? I believe it will not. d) If/When Samba is doing a file share reservation on file will that be propagated externaly to UNIX ? My findings tells me it don't. I don't this good or bad. I just want to know. /Patrik On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 19:18, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:39:01AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Well, you should know. But if Samba is doing byte ranged lock using fcntl, then I don't understand why my tests failed. The first test I did was: I simulated a NFS client and did byte range lock on a file, a document in this case 8K in size, and tried to open that from client using Samba and it failed becuse is was locked. The second test I did was: When a client opened the file using samba, with a DENY_WRITE lock (output from smbstatus) and I used the same simulated NFS client that did a byte range write lock using fcntl() on that document. I would assume that the byte range lock would fail, but it didn't it succeeded. That surprised me. You're confusing share modes with byte range locks. Read up on share modes - smbstatus doesn't report byte range locks, only share modes. Until you understand the difference we're not really communicating :-). At all :-). Jeremy. -- In a world without fences who needs Gates Patrik Gustavsson, Senior Technical Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +46 60 671540 http://glen.swedenMobile: +46 70 3551040 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Fax: +46 60 671550 -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Wed, Feb 11, 2004 at 02:11:07PM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Let me the try to communicate in a different way. The only thing I want to know if byte range locks or file share reservation are propagated to or from UNIX. That is: a) When a external program is doing a byte range lock through fcntl on file, will that be checked before Samba is opening the file ? My findings tells me it does. Yes it will. b) When a external program is doing file share reservation through on a file fcntl will that be checked before Samba is opening the file ? My findings tells me it don't. The test-program did file share reservation through fcntl on file with the parameters: f_access=F_RWACC (Set a file share reservation for read and write access) f_deny=F_RWDNY (Set a file share reservation to deny read and write) The client could through Samba open and write in that file. I have never heard of these f_access codes ? This is not POSIX. I have no clue what system you are using that has these share modes. No POSIX system has this. So not suprisingly Samba doesn't know anything about this. c) If/When Samba is doing a byte range lock on file will that byte range lock be propagated externaly to UNIX ? I believe it will not. Yes it will, you are incorrect. d) If/When Samba is doing a file share reservation on file will that be propagated externaly to UNIX ? My findings tells me it don't. Only on Linux, where Samba is compiled with the parameter HAVE_KERNEL_SHARE_MODES will share modes be understood by the kernel. Share modes have *NOTHING* to do with byte range locks. The two are completely orthoganal. You really need to understand this before you can proceed. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 07:46:11AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Yes, your are wright. But Samba will not do a byte ranged lock using fcntl() on the file when lock range is below 2^31 as stated in the docs. No, you've got it wrong (I *wrote* the mapping code). Samba checks a lock request against the internal 64-bit unsigned locking database. If that lock request would be granted (no other Windows locks conflict) then it tries to map the 64-bit unsigned Windows lock onto either (a) a 64-bit signed POSIX lock or (b) a 32-bit signed POSIX lock (depending on what the underlying UNIX supports). If it can also get that lock then the lock is granted, if not then it rolls back the lock entry in the internal Windows locking database and returns a lock error to the client. It can be complicated by the fact there is a parameter to tell Samba whether to map onto POSIX locks or not, and also a client may ask for a blocking lock which may delay the response. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
Well, you should know. But if Samba is doing byte ranged lock using fcntl, then I don't understand why my tests failed. The first test I did was: I simulated a NFS client and did byte range lock on a file, a document in this case 8K in size, and tried to open that from client using Samba and it failed becuse is was locked. The second test I did was: When a client opened the file using samba, with a DENY_WRITE lock (output from smbstatus) and I used the same simulated NFS client that did a byte range write lock using fcntl() on that document. I would assume that the byte range lock would fail, but it didn't it succeeded. That surprised me. The third test I did on my Solaris box was: I wrote a 'new' fcntl() function and that was preloaded when smbd was started. This 'new' function call logged all fcntl-calls before it called the real fcntl() call and returned the result. I opened the file from the client and tracked the filedesriptor for the opened file in /proc and compared with logging information from the fcntl calls. The only fcntl calls for that file was that smbd was asking for F_GETLK information. That lead me to the fact that smbd is not doing any byte range locks using fcntl(). Mayby I am wrong, but I can't where. /Patrik On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 08:15, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 07:46:11AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Yes, your are wright. But Samba will not do a byte ranged lock using fcntl() on the file when lock range is below 2^31 as stated in the docs. No, you've got it wrong (I *wrote* the mapping code). Samba checks a lock request against the internal 64-bit unsigned locking database. If that lock request would be granted (no other Windows locks conflict) then it tries to map the 64-bit unsigned Windows lock onto either (a) a 64-bit signed POSIX lock or (b) a 32-bit signed POSIX lock (depending on what the underlying UNIX supports). If it can also get that lock then the lock is granted, if not then it rolls back the lock entry in the internal Windows locking database and returns a lock error to the client. It can be complicated by the fact there is a parameter to tell Samba whether to map onto POSIX locks or not, and also a client may ask for a blocking lock which may delay the response. Jeremy. -- In a world without fences who needs Gates Patrik Gustavsson, Senior Technical Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +46 60 671540 http://glen.swedenMobile: +46 70 3551040 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Fax: +46 60 671550 -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:39:01AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Well, you should know. But if Samba is doing byte ranged lock using fcntl, then I don't understand why my tests failed. The first test I did was: I simulated a NFS client and did byte range lock on a file, a document in this case 8K in size, and tried to open that from client using Samba and it failed becuse is was locked. The second test I did was: When a client opened the file using samba, with a DENY_WRITE lock (output from smbstatus) and I used the same simulated NFS client that did a byte range write lock using fcntl() on that document. I would assume that the byte range lock would fail, but it didn't it succeeded. That surprised me. You're confusing share modes with byte range locks. Read up on share modes - smbstatus doesn't report byte range locks, only share modes. Until you understand the difference we're not really communicating :-). At all :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
Hallo Jeremy, You're confusing share modes with byte range locks. Read up on share modes - smbstatus doesn't report byte range locks, only share modes. Until you understand the difference we're not really communicating :-). At all :-). if smbstatus could show byte range locks, the debugging of locking issues would be easier then today. Is it possible to enhance smbstatus that way? __ Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:11:48PM +0100, Thomas Bork wrote: Hallo Jeremy, You're confusing share modes with byte range locks. Read up on share modes - smbstatus doesn't report byte range locks, only share modes. Until you understand the difference we're not really communicating :-). At all :-). if smbstatus could show byte range locks, the debugging of locking issues would be easier then today. Is it possible to enhance smbstatus that way? Patches are welcome :-). Make it an option though, as it will disrupt the normal status output. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:25:25AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: The things that tricked me was that I read the docs for Samba 3 regarding locks. And it says in the third paragraph in section 14.2 Samba 2.2 and above implements record locking completely independent of the underlying UNIX system. If a byte range lock that the client requests happens to fall into the range of 0-2^31, Samba hands this request down to the UNIX system. All other locks cannot be seen by UNIX, anyway I interperted that Samba would do fcntl locks on the file if the request is below 2^31 and not if it is above. Which are not true. Secondly, I don't understand why Samba is checking if a file locked through fcntl before opening it, when it is not locking the file through fcntl when Samba is opening the file. Samba doesn't use fcntl to check locks before opening, that's what share modes are for. fcntl locks are for byte range lock mapping onto POSIX. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
Yes, your are wright. But Samba will not do a byte ranged lock using fcntl() on the file when lock range is below 2^31 as stated in the docs. /Patrik On tis, 2004-02-10 at 00:22, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:25:25AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: The things that tricked me was that I read the docs for Samba 3 regarding locks. And it says in the third paragraph in section 14.2 Samba 2.2 and above implements record locking completely independent of the underlying UNIX system. If a byte range lock that the client requests happens to fall into the range of 0-2^31, Samba hands this request down to the UNIX system. All other locks cannot be seen by UNIX, anyway I interperted that Samba would do fcntl locks on the file if the request is below 2^31 and not if it is above. Which are not true. Secondly, I don't understand why Samba is checking if a file locked through fcntl before opening it, when it is not locking the file through fcntl when Samba is opening the file. Samba doesn't use fcntl to check locks before opening, that's what share modes are for. fcntl locks are for byte range lock mapping onto POSIX. Jeremy. -- In a world without fences who needs Gates Patrik Gustavsson, Senior Technical Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +46 60 671540 http://glen.swedenMobile: +46 70 3551040 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Fax: +46 60 671550 -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
The things that tricked me was that I read the docs for Samba 3 regarding locks. And it says in the third paragraph in section 14.2 Samba 2.2 and above implements record locking completely independent of the underlying UNIX system. If a byte range lock that the client requests happens to fall into the range of 0-2^31, Samba hands this request down to the UNIX system. All other locks cannot be seen by UNIX, anyway I interperted that Samba would do fcntl locks on the file if the request is below 2^31 and not if it is above. Which are not true. Secondly, I don't understand why Samba is checking if a file locked through fcntl before opening it, when it is not locking the file through fcntl when Samba is opening the file. /Patrik On ons, 2004-02-04 at 18:38, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:14:31AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Let me be more specific of what I am trying to do. I am the engineer at Sun that wrote the cluster agent for Samba, a standard HA agent. This works as a dream and is deployed on several clusters around the world. Now, I am doing study to see if the standard samba can be run as a scalable service (Several smbd's on different nodes accessing the same data). I know the issue with oplocks, so they are disable duering this tests. The Sun Cluster has the feature GFS (Global File system) as what True Cluster has. And the GFS will propagate all fcntl(), lockf() calls to all the nodes in the cluster. This has been tested by issuing a fcntl() locks on file, both local and remote, and having pc trying open that file and it's fail because it is locked. The issue I have with Samba locks is that, when a client open file I can have put a fcntl() write lock on that file. That shouldn't be possible if the file or part of that file had been looked with a fcntl() call. The output from smbstatus for that file: 6696 DENY_WRITE 0x2019f RDWR NONE /global/mnt1/datadir/TEST.sxw Wed Feb 4 10:50:44 2004 This won't work unless you have some method of propagating the open file table (found in locking.tdb) which tells clients what the current open share modes are. You need to solve this basic problem before you get to esoterica like byte range locks across the cluster. Jeremy. -- In a world without fences who needs Gates Patrik Gustavsson, Senior Technical Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +46 60 671540 http://glen.swedenMobile: +46 70 3551040 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Fax: +46 60 671550 -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
Hi, If I get this wright is that Samba will not use a direct call to fcnl() to lock the file. IE: If a PC open a file and do lock that file, will that lock be propagated so other application on the server can see that file is locked by calling fcntl(). /Patrik On lör, 2004-01-31 at 01:24, 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 -- In a world without fences who needs Gates Patrik Gustavsson, Senior Technical Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +46 60 671540 http://glen.swedenMobile: +46 70 3551040 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Fax: +46 60 671550 -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 20:29, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Hi, If I get this wright is that Samba will not use a direct call to fcnl() to lock the file. IE: If a PC open a file and do lock that file, will that lock be propagated so other application on the server can see that file is locked by calling fcntl(). Yes. Samba will, to the best of it's ability, use fcntl() locks to indicate SMB locks to other applications (be they local unix apps, or NFS clients etc) 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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
Let me be more specific of what I am trying to do. I am the engineer at Sun that wrote the cluster agent for Samba, a standard HA agent. This works as a dream and is deployed on several clusters around the world. Now, I am doing study to see if the standard samba can be run as a scalable service (Several smbd's on different nodes accessing the same data). I know the issue with oplocks, so they are disable duering this tests. The Sun Cluster has the feature GFS (Global File system) as what True Cluster has. And the GFS will propagate all fcntl(), lockf() calls to all the nodes in the cluster. This has been tested by issuing a fcntl() locks on file, both local and remote, and having pc trying open that file and it's fail because it is locked. The issue I have with Samba locks is that, when a client open file I can have put a fcntl() write lock on that file. That shouldn't be possible if the file or part of that file had been looked with a fcntl() call. The output from smbstatus for that file: 6696 DENY_WRITE 0x2019f RDWR NONE /global/mnt1/datadir/TEST.sxw Wed Feb 4 10:50:44 2004 The samba version I am using is 3.0.1 /Patrik On ons, 2004-02-04 at 10:45, Andrew Bartlett wrote: On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 20:29, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Hi, If I get this wright is that Samba will not use a direct call to fcnl() to lock the file. IE: If a PC open a file and do lock that file, will that lock be propagated so other application on the server can see that file is locked by calling fcntl(). Yes. Samba will, to the best of it's ability, use fcntl() locks to indicate SMB locks to other applications (be they local unix apps, or NFS clients etc) Andrew Bartlett -- In a world without fences who needs Gates Patrik Gustavsson, Senior Technical Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +46 60 671540 http://glen.swedenMobile: +46 70 3551040 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Fax: +46 60 671550 -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 11:14:31AM +0100, Patrik Gustavsson wrote: Let me be more specific of what I am trying to do. I am the engineer at Sun that wrote the cluster agent for Samba, a standard HA agent. This works as a dream and is deployed on several clusters around the world. Now, I am doing study to see if the standard samba can be run as a scalable service (Several smbd's on different nodes accessing the same data). I know the issue with oplocks, so they are disable duering this tests. The Sun Cluster has the feature GFS (Global File system) as what True Cluster has. And the GFS will propagate all fcntl(), lockf() calls to all the nodes in the cluster. This has been tested by issuing a fcntl() locks on file, both local and remote, and having pc trying open that file and it's fail because it is locked. The issue I have with Samba locks is that, when a client open file I can have put a fcntl() write lock on that file. That shouldn't be possible if the file or part of that file had been looked with a fcntl() call. The output from smbstatus for that file: 6696 DENY_WRITE 0x2019f RDWR NONE /global/mnt1/datadir/TEST.sxw Wed Feb 4 10:50:44 2004 This won't work unless you have some method of propagating the open file table (found in locking.tdb) which tells clients what the current open share modes are. You need to solve this basic problem before you get to esoterica like byte range locks across the cluster. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
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
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 01:26:01PM -0600, Thomas Hannan wrote: 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). Nope, Samba always handles full 64-bit unsigned locks internally. It then passes down the parts that make sense to the underlying lock system (be it 32-bit or 64-bit signed). Samba should already be doing this. If it isn't for you then the configure test is screwing up and telling Samba you have 64-bit signed fcntl locks when you really don't (such as when re-exporting an NFS mount for instance). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:12:16PM -0600, Thomas Hannan wrote: This is exactly the case -- I want it to NOT pass down a 64 bit lock to fcntl but it does. I unfortunately have no alternative but to re-export an NFS mount (v3 on linux), and have tried to make it fail the configure test for 64 bit fcntl, but have not succeeded. (in the configure script, I simply made either result of the conftest for 64 bit fcntl locking set samba_cv_HAVE_STRUCT_FLOCK64=no) ... even when I compile after telling it that I don't have 64bit locking, i still get loads of errors in my syslog from smbd locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(656) an No locks available error. This can happen when using 64 bit offsets I wish I could find a way to not have to re-export an NFS mount, but there's no way around it and I know that when I tested with an old 2.2 binary that it worked beautifully, but I wasn't able to use any of the new features in 3.0, or test out new RC versions... You could try doing the configure in the NFS mounted directory. I think configure runs the tests in the current directory. Then the 64-bit locking tests should fail and Samba should set itself up as only supporting 32-bit signed locks. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
The builds themselves are done in an NFS mount ls -l : /usr/local/src/samba-3.0.1 - /var/archive/globauth/samba-3.0.1 mount : triton:/var/archive on /var/archive type nfs (rw,vers=3,wsize=16384,rsize=16384,hard,intr,addr=192.168.1.50) could it possibly be executing the tests in /tmp, or maybe could this actually be a bug in the configure test? I don't know if there are still any bugs in Redhat's build environment, but just in case, the machine that I'm building Samba on is a RH7.3 system with the latest glibc 2.2.5-34 patch that RH issued, gcc 2.96-110 and a slightly older kernel (2.4.18-3). I don't have a Debian or any other *nix server here for that matter to test on. Thanks, Thomas On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 14:08, Jeremy Allison wrote: On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 02:12:16PM -0600, Thomas Hannan wrote: This is exactly the case -- I want it to NOT pass down a 64 bit lock to fcntl but it does. I unfortunately have no alternative but to re-export an NFS mount (v3 on linux), and have tried to make it fail the configure test for 64 bit fcntl, but have not succeeded. (in the configure script, I simply made either result of the conftest for 64 bit fcntl locking set samba_cv_HAVE_STRUCT_FLOCK64=no) ... even when I compile after telling it that I don't have 64bit locking, i still get loads of errors in my syslog from smbd locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(656) an No locks available error. This can happen when using 64 bit offsets I wish I could find a way to not have to re-export an NFS mount, but there's no way around it and I know that when I tested with an old 2.2 binary that it worked beautifully, but I wasn't able to use any of the new features in 3.0, or test out new RC versions... You could try doing the configure in the NFS mounted directory. I think configure runs the tests in the current directory. Then the 64-bit locking tests should fail and Samba should set itself up as only supporting 32-bit signed locks. Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] A samba locking question
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 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] A samba locking question
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 /Patrik -- In a world without fences who needs Gates Patrik Gustavsson, Senior Technical Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +46 60 671540 http://glen.swedenMobile: +46 70 3551040 SUN MICROSYSTEMS Fax: +46 60 671550 -- -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
