On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 05:50:58PM -0700, Matt Seitz wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The only thing would be to completely disallow
connection timeouts for Win9x clients - I'm not sure
this is what we want.
Perhaps timeouts could be prevented for a 9x client
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The only thing would be to completely disallow
connection timeouts for Win9x clients - I'm not sure
this is what we want.
Perhaps timeouts could be prevented for a 9x client when an oplock is
present? Or have two timeouts: a shorter (soft)
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 09:35:38AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:55:20PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:48:27PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And are you saying that Win2k will never 'idle' a client connection? I'm
sure I've seen
Please see: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q297684
Which says in part...
SYMPTOMS
When you perform drive mapping from a Windows 2000-based client computer to either a
Microsoft
Windows NT or Windows 2000 network share, the drive mapping may be disconnected after
15
Wouldn't it be neat if we could do _better_ than MS at their own game and somehow
prevent the
win9x client bug from getting triggered in case of timeout disconnections?
Rich Bollinger
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Richard Bollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 02:05:19PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
Well, I've managed to get this to happen to a W2K server too,
took me a while though.
It's definately a client bug with the Win9x client, but we seem
to trigger it all the time whereas Win2k seems to trigger it sometimes.
Stoping the server service is a very unusual step. Disconnecting an individual
connection,
possibly via idle timeout, is not so unusual and I don't see the same behaviour with
W2K server
vs Samba. Something else must be going on.
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Allison
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 05:09:00PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
Stoping the server service is a very unusual step. Disconnecting an individual
connection,
possibly via idle timeout, is not so unusual and I don't see the same behaviour
with W2K server
vs Samba. Something else must be
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:10:22AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Isn't there a way we can 'idle' the connection by tearing down the
protocol? Actually issuing a 'you are idle, shutting down' to the
client?
Nope - would require a client change I'm afraid. There's nothing
in the protocol
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:43:05PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 08:10:22AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
Isn't there a way we can 'idle' the connection by tearing down the
protocol? Actually issuing a 'you are idle, shutting down' to the
client?
Nope -
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:48:27PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And are you saying that Win2k will never 'idle' a client connection? I'm
sure I've seen smbfs being 'idled' by NT before...
I don't think it ever drops the TCP connection on purpose.
Jeremy.
Have you tried setting the undocumented AUTODISCONENCT parameter in the registry?
http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q138365
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Andrew
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:26:00PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
Right... or if it times out because of the dead time setting... so it's shouldn't be
that rare
in the wild. I have a feeling that a lot of folks just disable oplocks to avoid the
troubles.
My test at work showed that the
How embarassing... still apparently broken / inconsistent :-(
Client is win98 4.10.1998.
[2002/05/24 08:36:40, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
smbd version 2.2.5-pre started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002
(rab@LS01) (gcc version 2.7.2.3) #1 Fri May 24 07:21:54 EDT 2002
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:00:43AM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
How embarassing... still apparently broken / inconsistent :-(
Client is win98 4.10.1998.
[2002/05/24 08:36:40, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
smbd version 2.2.5-pre started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team
OK... time for a brain flush and refill...
I went back and verified my test conditions and determined that the same failure can
be demonstrated
with every server platform we own running Samba 2.X with oplocks enabled and with a
Win98 client.
Here's the setup:
On Win98 client:
net use i:
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 02:05:12PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
OK... time for a brain flush and refill...
I went back and verified my test conditions and determined that the same failure can
be demonstrated
with every server platform we own running Samba 2.X with oplocks enabled and
Same exact failure with
Linux 2.0.38
Linux 2.2.20
Linux 2.4.18
SunOS 5.6
I'll have to let you know Tuesday if it fails with just any old executable... but I'd
expect it
would.
Rich B
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Richard Bollinger
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 07:16:07PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
Same exact failure with
Linux 2.0.38
Linux 2.2.20
Linux 2.4.18
SunOS 5.6
I'll have to let you know Tuesday if it fails with just any old executable... but
I'd expect it
would.
Well can you send me the
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 02:05:12PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
OK... time for a brain flush and refill...
I went back and verified my test conditions and determined that the same failure can
be demonstrated
with every server platform we own running Samba 2.X with oplocks enabled and
Right... or if it times out because of the dead time setting... so it's shouldn't be
that rare
in the wild. I have a feeling that a lot of folks just disable oplocks to avoid the
troubles.
My test at work showed that the problem did not occur with a W2K server when I forced
the
disconnect
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:26:00PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
Right... or if it times out because of the dead time setting... so it's shouldn't be
that rare
in the wild. I have a feeling that a lot of folks just disable oplocks to avoid the
troubles.
My test at work showed that the
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 02:56:05PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
Much thanks and praises to whomever diagnosed and fixed the timing problems with
linux 2.0 and
oplocks. On one busy 2.0.38 server, I had seen consistent oplock timeouts...
especially when
running an executable DOS program
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 03:18:04PM -0400, Richard Bollinger wrote:
I only ran a quick functionality test ... a very old version of Netbench (2.10). It
always hung for
30 seconds when starting netbench.exe... until the oplock timed out. Seems fine now.
Great ! Thanks - good news. This will
24 matches
Mail list logo
