Share violations with 0 open files???
davecb at canada.sun.com
Tue Jul 17 12:04:40 GMT 2001
Russell Senior wrote:
> Rafal> Did log level 3 or above (5 for instance) show something more ?
> I haven't had a chance to capture anything at the higher log levels
> yet. Maybe tomorrow. I'll post again when I've had a chance. In the
> mean time, any clues would be helpful.
Only a clue: clients may keep share-type locks
open between open-close pairs, reasoning that
they have to provide locks between an open-read-close
and an open-write-close. This **may** be the case
with database-like programs.
Access can run as a single-user database, using filesystem
locks to allow several individuals to not destroy each others'
updates, but this does NOT work well. In fact, it scales
so badly that it becomes unusable from load at about the time
it becomes invaluable to the organization using it, which then
has to buy a backend real database, and use Access as an "access
method". I refer to this scenario as the "free sample of crack
cocaine" marketing approach.
You should consider using backend that supports ODBC, and use
Access as a high-quality user interface. A colleague
reccomends msql... there are others you might consider.
> Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
> seniorr at aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
> profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
> extremely unusual.' ''
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering | -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849 | davecb at canada.sun.com
More information about the samba-technical