Jeremy Allison jra at
Tue Apr 9 10:43:02 GMT 2002

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:00:26AM -0700, Shirish Kalele wrote:
> But the values we send don't even match up with NTFS allocation values. So
> what does getting it right mean?

Doing what NT does :-). Also, it changes the behaviour of how NT
will write into new space. This can be *very* efficient. One of
the reasons we give a large allocation space is that NT then
does *large* efficient writes in units of the allocation space
to fill up a new file. I was able to tune the NT client behaviour
by doing this.

> Here's a patch to reply_ntcreate_and_X that returns the allocation in one of
> the fields instead of the file length.

Ok - I'll look at that.

> I also found that Windows 2000 returns a weird ntcreate_and_X reply: 42
> parameter words PLUS 18 bytes that are not accounted for in the word or
> bytes counts. It seems to me that 8 of these extra 18 bytes contain two
> access masks (seem to be User and Guest/Everyone-else). I'm guessing these
> are something to do with "Simple File Sharing". The access masks here
> determine how the file is accessed on the client offline (i.e. what
> permissions the user has and what permissions anyone else who accesses the
> file on the same client offline has). Win2K/XP tcon_and_X replies also have
> these two access masks in the parameter words (the reason why they return 7
> words instead of 3).

We need to analyse this rather than doing it for 2.2.4

> Finally, I think it would be a good idea to get the client-side-caching
> policy patch into 2.2.4. Do you want to take a look at it or should I just
> go ahead and check it in?

I want to look at it - it definately looks good though. Can you give
me a day or so before checking it in ?



More information about the samba-technical mailing list