From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 13:25:23 -0500
Looks good so far. I've been running it for several hours and both Jeff and I
are trying to break it. Assuming I don't crash and burn, I'll push it out to
my customer site tonight and if they don't see any
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:54:58 -0700
Ok, I've fixed up the smbldap_search code and added a max sleep replication
time of 5 seconds. I've committed to 3.0 svn if you want to try it. This
should fix the issue you've reported here. Let me know if not
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:25:23PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 15:54:58 -0700
Ok, I've fixed up the smbldap_search code and added a max sleep replication
time of 5 seconds. I've committed to 3.0 svn if you want to try it.
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:34:17 -0700
Whenever you find yourself in Austin, you'll have to stop by and collect the
beer that I owe you.
I might just take you up on that. :-).
That's one of the beauties of open source software. If I found a
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:05:18AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:54:53 -0500
(I'm still trying to get a new debug log for you.)
Sorry this took a while, but unfortunately I have other responsibilities.
New log at
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 10:53:03AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:05:18AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:54:53 -0500
(I'm still trying to get a new debug log for you.)
Sorry this took a
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:27:31 -0700
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:43:48PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:43:54 -0700
Can you try with : defer sharing violations = Yes but
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:43:54 -0700
Can you try with : defer sharing violations = Yes but
kernel oplocks = no
oplocks = yes
level2 oplocks = yes
Also. I'm starting to think it may be an interaction between
Linux kernel oplocks and deferred
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:43:48PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:43:54 -0700
Can you try with : defer sharing violations = Yes but
kernel oplocks = no
oplocks = yes
level2 oplocks = yes
Also. I'm starting to
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:43:48PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:43:54 -0700
Can you try with : defer sharing violations = Yes but
kernel oplocks = no
oplocks = yes
level2 oplocks = yes
Also. I'm starting to
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:47:34 -0700
The strange thing is the Oplock value of none here
Are you sure you have kernel oplocks set to no ? Use testparm to
be sure and ensure you've restarted smbd or it won't take effect.
hmmm. what does this
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 05:16:24PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 14:47:34 -0700
The strange thing is the Oplock value of none here
Are you sure you have kernel oplocks set to no ? Use testparm to
be sure and ensure
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:43:48PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:43:54 -0700
Can you try with : defer sharing violations = Yes but
kernel oplocks = no
oplocks = yes
level2 oplocks = yes
Also. I'm starting to
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:55:03 -0700
Ok, Chris - if you svn update you'll find I've added a new global parameter to
control the action of the defer open code. It's called
defer sharing violations and it's set to yes by default (to emulate Windows
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:55:03 -0700
Ok, Chris - if you svn update you'll find I've added a new global parameter to
control the action of the defer open code. It's called
defer sharing violations and it's set to yes by default (to emulate Windows
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:01:55 -0500
I'm halfway there. It just failed with defer sharing violations = Yes.
I've changed the flag to No. Since it doesn't always fail, I'll try all day
to get it to fail. If it fails, I'll let you know. If it
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 10:01:55AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:55:03 -0700
Ok, Chris - if you svn update you'll find I've added a new global parameter to
control the action of the defer open code. It's called
defer
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:11:55AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:01:55 -0500
I'm halfway there. It just failed with defer sharing violations = Yes.
I've changed the flag to No. Since it doesn't always fail, I'll try
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:54:23 -0700
P.S. I've turned oplocks off on the customer's server. Am I correct in
thinking that will mask the problem so they won't see it?
Yes, it will. Are you sure you're running the SVN code. I did fix a bug
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:18:39PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:54:23 -0700
P.S. I've turned oplocks off on the customer's server. Am I correct in
thinking that will mask the problem so they won't see it?
Yes,
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:20:40 -0700
I can't reproduce this :-(.
I sent you a large log yesterday but it was blocked by some mail server due
to the size. I've just dropped the email messag on my web server at:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:59:10 -0500
I sent you a large log yesterday but it was blocked by some mail server due
to the size. I've just dropped the email messag on my web server at:
http://www.trinsics.com/~cwg/smblogmail
I just had
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:25:29AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:59:10 -0500
I sent you a large log yesterday but it was blocked by some mail server due
to the size. I've just dropped the email messag on my web server
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:25:29AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:59:10 -0500
I sent you a large log yesterday but it was blocked by some mail server due
to the size. I've just dropped the email messag on my web server
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:25:29AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:59:10 -0500
I sent you a large log yesterday but it was blocked by some mail server due
to the size. I've just dropped the email messag on my web server
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:04:37 -0500
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:45:16 -0500
[2004/06/24 07:38:05, 0] passdb/pdb_ldap.c:ldapsam_search_one_group(1782)
ldapsam_search_one_group: Problem during the LDAP
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:30:09AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
It solved some of the issues we've been seeing, but we're still getting
reports of delays while trying to open files of over a minute. The message I
originally forwarded mentioned twice this morning. Here's the server log
Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:29:32 -0700
Check network hardware (negotiation etc). This is usually called by a flakey
network.
~sigh~ Thanks, but neither the server nor the switch are showing any network
problems.
Hell, we aren't
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:00:48AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
~sigh~ Thanks, but neither the server nor the switch are showing any network
problems.
Hell, we aren't even seeing any collisions on the server:
Ok, so can you reproduce this ? Are you using latest svn code ?
If you can
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:02:07 -0700
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:00:48AM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
~sigh~ Thanks, but neither the server nor the switch are showing any netw
ork problems.
Hell, we aren't even seeing any collisions on the
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:22:11 -0500
I haven't been able to reproduce it yet.
Got it!
Open an Excel file. Save it. Go to lunch.
When you return, go to FileSave As... and click on Save to save it over
itself. Say that you want to save the file
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:45:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:22:11 -0500
I haven't been able to reproduce it yet.
Got it!
Open an Excel file. Save it. Go to lunch.
When you return, go to FileSave As... and
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:48:43 -0700
Ok, thanks. A couple of questions. What MS-Office version ? What Samba
code version (is this current svn code) ? What is your platform ? What
oplock settings do you have in your smb.conf ?
I'm running Excel 2K
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:45:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:22:11 -0500
I haven't been able to reproduce it yet.
Got it!
Open an Excel file. Save it. Go to lunch.
When you return, go to FileSave As... and
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:45:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:22:11 -0500
I haven't been able to reproduce it yet.
Got it!
Open an Excel file. Save it. Go to lunch.
When you return, go to FileSave As... and
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:45:03PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
From: Chris Garrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:22:11 -0500
I haven't been able to reproduce it yet.
Got it!
Open an Excel file. Save it. Go to lunch.
When you return, go to FileSave As... and
36 matches
Mail list logo
