Re: [Samba] "inotify_handler No data on inotify fd?"
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:06:50AM -0500, Kyle Schmitt wrote: > When I logged into the server, lsof told me the offending client had a > single Excel file open about 1300 times, and I found their samba > process had been running for 14 hours. This is the second time someone reports a mad excel. If there was a way to reproduce this here, I would be very happy... Volker signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
Re: [Samba] "inotify_handler No data on inotify fd?"
> -Original Message- > From: samba-boun...@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-boun...@lists.samba.org] > On Behalf Of Kyle Schmitt > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:07 AM > To: samba > Subject: [Samba] "inotify_handler No data on inotify fd?" > > I've got a samba server that's occasionally spewing inotify errors. > > The classic, "smbd/notify_inotify.c:inotify_handler No data on inotify > fd?" type errors solved by > kernel change notify = false > > Now, everything is working perfectly on this box unless one or two > users leave files open from specific machines (this is as far as I can > tell, it's hard to get good info from the users sometimes, but it's > what the logs indicate). > > Because of this, I would rather not put in the "kernel change notify = > false" line, so I'm wondering if there's another good solution. > > When I logged into the server, lsof told me the offending client had a > single Excel file open about 1300 times, and I found their samba > process had been running for 14 hours. > > What if I set limits, lets say hard and soft limits for open files to > 512, or 128, and cpu time limits of 4 hours or so. > Would that cause issues for my users? > Would that have killed the misbehaving client, or at least kept it > from choking my system? > Will samba behave OK, if a user's samba process runs out of open file > handles, or will it instead fill my logs even faster? > > Thanks > --Kyle >From what I understand changing the kernel notify options only affects users viewing files created locally (i.e. root logged on to the server creates a file) - not via smb connections. And in the worst case they have to hit "refresh" to get an updated list from the server. I would just turn it off and save yourself the headache. -=Andrew -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
[Samba] "inotify_handler No data on inotify fd?"
I've got a samba server that's occasionally spewing inotify errors. The classic, "smbd/notify_inotify.c:inotify_handler No data on inotify fd?" type errors solved by kernel change notify = false Now, everything is working perfectly on this box unless one or two users leave files open from specific machines (this is as far as I can tell, it's hard to get good info from the users sometimes, but it's what the logs indicate). Because of this, I would rather not put in the "kernel change notify = false" line, so I'm wondering if there's another good solution. When I logged into the server, lsof told me the offending client had a single Excel file open about 1300 times, and I found their samba process had been running for 14 hours. What if I set limits, lets say hard and soft limits for open files to 512, or 128, and cpu time limits of 4 hours or so. Would that cause issues for my users? Would that have killed the misbehaving client, or at least kept it from choking my system? Will samba behave OK, if a user's samba process runs out of open file handles, or will it instead fill my logs even faster? Thanks --Kyle -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
