Existing file deleted on disk full (or disk ful) errors

Julia Holloway jhllwy at us.ibm.com
Fri Oct 19 11:22:05 GMT 2001


Jeremy,

The Unlock packets that are in the trace are oplock releases on the file.
The problem occurs even when these packets are not sent, so it does appear
that they are important.

Traces are on the way.

Thanks,

Julie


jra at samba.org (Jeremy Allison) on 10/18/2001 09:15:22 PM

To:   Julia Holloway/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
cc:   samba-technical at lists.samba.org
Subject:  Re: Existing file deleted on disk full (or disk ful) errors



On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 03:15:11PM -0400, Julie Holloway wrote:
> (Sorry for the poor append previously.  Too much formatting. Here is my
> append again, with the original included.  Hopefully, this will make
> more sense.)
>
> I too have seen this problem.  Below is a summary of the packet flow
> between an NT client and the Samba 2.2.1 server compared with an NT
> client with an NT server: (The packet numbers are based on the Network
> Monitor traces that I took)
>
> NT client to Samba 2.2.1 case:       NT client to NT server case:
> ==============================      =============================
>
> pkt 64 -  Tmp file deleted           pkt 221 - Tmp file deleted
>
> pkt 84 - Disk Full error             pkt 237 - Disk Full error
>
> pkt 91 - Open on srvsvc (1)          pkt 242 - Open on srvsvc (1)
>
> pkt 109 - Open on doc1.txt           pkt 256 - Open on doc1.txt
>
> pkt 110-112 - Unlock
>
> pkt 115 - NT IOCTL                   pkt 258 - NT IOCTL
>
> pkt 116 - Fails (unsupported)        pkt 259 - Fails (invalid)
>
> pkt 120 - Open on srvsvc (2)         pkt 266 - Open on srvsvc (2)
>
> pkt 130 - Findfirst on \*            pkt 278 - Findfirst on \*
>
> A bunch of Query path info's
>
> pkt 157 - Open on doc1.txt.txt
>
> pkt 159 - Query file info (0x109)
>
> pkt 160 - fails (Invalid Level)
>
> pkt 168 - Delete of doc1.txt
>
> As you can see, all seems pretty normal in the Samba case until the
> FindFirst request. This problem occurs on the current CVS version of
> Samba (Linux).

The 110-112 Unlocks - are they oplock breaks ? This seems to be the only
difference (except the error return on 259). If so why is the file oplocked
in Samba and not on NT ? More info needed (packets prior to this I'm
afraid).

Jeremy.






More information about the samba-technical mailing list