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

[Richard Sharpe]

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?