[samba-tng] spoolss conversion and others
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at samba.org
Fri Jan 28 22:28:30 GMT 2000
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Sat Jan 29 2000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Peter Svensson wrote:
> >
> > > By switching to a real database (I assume that is what is being done, I
> > > was too quick with the "D"elete at the beginning of the thread) queuing up
> > > the incoming changes should be doable if we don't want to stall them
> > > until the unthrottle.
> >
> > weelll..... that's a bit of a pain. by "locking" you will stop EVERYONE
> > from being able to log in, access new shares etc.
> >
> > it's a bit like shutting off the pdc!
>
> Why? Use separate TDBs for SAM, WINs, shares. You've already stated that
> the DCE/RPC daemons are single-threaded and will continue to be so for a
> while. So if each DCE/RPC daemon has its own TDB locking those during
> transaction commits cannot impact any services. Or did you mean that a
> sysadmin locking a TDB could cause services to hang for the duration of
> the sysadmin's transaction. Hmmm.
yes.
>
> Just say "caveat emptor"! :^)
>
> It shan't be your problem!
correct!
> But if you really want to avoid that make TDB locking not lock out TDB
> queries, use a transaction logfile to store all write operations and
> truly commit them to the TDB at TDB unlock time. Unlocking would briefly
> lock out TDB queries, sure, but the length of that lockout would be very
> short, whereas a sysadmin might inadvertently keep writes locked out for
> a long time.
urr. that's fairly major, and it's no longer a "trivial data base".
hmm... maybe someone should consider writing a "ttdb" transaction trivial
data base.
any volunteers?
More information about the samba-ntdom
mailing list