oplocks ERROR

[Michael Holopainen]

Does anyone know what this means or is it serious, I found it in smb log
? 

[2000/09/25 07:34:55, 0] smbd/oplock.c:process_local_message(590)
  process_local_message: unknown UDP message command code (65ea) -
ignoring.

-michael (A)


Simo Sorce wrote:
> 
> > Paul Leach wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matthew Geddes [mailto:mgeddes at xavier.sa.edu.au]
> > > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 4:18 PM
> > > To: samba-ntdom at us4.samba.org
> > > Subject: FINAL: Future/end of TNG
> > >
> > > The Samba team have been working flat out for some time now, trying
> > to
> > > add features from Samba TNG to Samba. I don't believe that they
> > could
> > > possibly put an accurate timeframe on completion, because the set of
> >
> > > protocols they are dealing with are known to be undocumented
> > > (until Luke
> > > documented them) and Microsoft have been pretty keen to change
> > little
> > > parts of the protocols to break things like Samba.
> >
> > We have never added any improvements (or non-improvements) to the
> > protocols in order to "break" Samba (or to affect it in any way at
> > all).  We tested Win2k against Samba as a file server to make sure
> > that it continued to work as a "down-level" server, along with NT4,
> > OS/2, Windows 9x, and others. Of course, it (just like NT4) would not
> > support the new Windows 2000 features, by which we hope to entice our
> > customers to upgrade by providing new value to them.
> >
> > Just to be clear: we didn't test Win2k against Samba as a DC; we did
> > test against NT4 DCs, however, so if Samba really does emulate all NT4
> > DC functionality, it should have been OK.
> >
> > Paul
> 
> I'm not a Samba team member, but as I remember Samba needed to upgrade
> from 2.0.6 to 2.0.7 just to serve files to Win2k machines, so your claim
> that you tested Win 2000 against Samba to ensure compatibility as file
> server must be false!
> 
> DC functionality was not supported so testing against it was obviously
> not required, anyway win2k does not function with samba 2.0.x in NT4
> compatibility mode(how much compatible is then??)
> 
> I hate to see this kind of statements from employee of a company that is
> proven to have made unfair practices, I think taht if you care your
> personal reputation you should check twice and prove your statements
> before speaking.
> 
> --
> Simo Sorce - Integrazione Sistemi Unix/Windows - Politecnico di Milano
> E-mail: simo.sorce at polimi.it
> Tel.int: 02 2399 2425 - Fax.int. 02 2399 2451
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Be happy, use Linux!

-- 
   --"Would you fly on airplane controlled by MS Windows ?"--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Michael Holopainen | Valuraudantie 25 | Tel: +358-(0)9-35093825  |
|                    | 00700 Helsinki   | Fax : +358-(0)9-35093850 |
| Laserle Oy         | Finland          | email: michael at laserle.fi|
--------------------------------------------------------------------