Batch OpLocks: Are they used much these days ...

Richard Sharpe rsharpe at
Thu Jan 10 12:14:05 GMT 2002

Urban Widmark wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, David Collier-Brown wrote:
>>Urban Widmark wrote:
>>>Batch oplocks allow a lot more caching on the client side. smbfs can read
>>>pages into memory and does not have to invalidate them even when the file
>>>is closed, because the batch oplock allows the close to be cached. If the
>>>file is opened again the pages remain valid.
>>>The smbfs code doesn't actually do that, but it could.
>>>Why would anyone want just an exclusive oplock?
>>	Arguably for sharing: if the file needs
>>	to be single-writer multiple-reader an
>>	exclusive write lock is appropriate.
>But an exclusive _oplock_ does not allow anyone else to have the file
>open. When someone else opens you get a notification and your oplock is
>broken. After that you can no longer cache any data.
Hmmm, don't you get a break to Level II?

More information about the samba-technical mailing list