[Samba] Re: How Samba let us down

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:04:43AM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 10:44:28AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:08:10PM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
> > > And Solaris?  At least they're autoconfigured to assume kernel oplocks
> > > according to testparm, and the docs say this is done only if the support
> > > is there.

> > smb.conf(5):

> >        kernel oplocks (G)

> >               [...]

> >               This parameter defaults to on, but is translated to
> >               a no-op on systems that no not have  the  necessary
> >               kernel  support.   You  should  never need to touch
> >               this parameter.

> Ok, thanks I should have read more closely.  May I respectfully
> suggest that this is forced off for those Unices without kernel
> support rather than silently ineffective?

Ah, but it doesn't really matter *what* the value of kernel oplocks is,
if you don't have kernel support for oplocks. :)  The only other option
would be to have oplocks completely disabled by default if kernel
support is absent.  I'm not sure this is justified, given that it's only
an issue if you have multiple applications competing for a file without
knowing anything about one another's locking conventions -- pretty bad
situation to be in, no matter what...

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20021025/8f2df453/attachment.bin