file change notification issues
jra at dp.samba.org
jra at dp.samba.org
Wed Jan 29 01:03:02 GMT 2003
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 10:55:12AM -0500, Hal Roberts wrote:
> The purpose of this mail is to make sure no one else is
> working on / has already finished hacking samba's file
> change notification support to support notification of
> individual file changes. If not, I plan on doing so forthwith.
> More details:
> I've been wrestling with samba for the past couple of weeks
> trying to get it to play nicely with IIS. I've got IIS
> running with a samba share as the root directory, and
> everything works well except for asp caching. When running
> from a samba share, IIS refuses to invalidate any cached
> asps, even if the cached asp is modified or even deleted or
> I've finally pegged the problem as samba file change
> notification support. The cifs reference at:
> indicates that samba should send back information about
> which files triggered a notification and why for any
> directory with notification running (for instance,
> /test/test.asp and FILE_ACTION_MODIFIED). Samba should send
> back a list of such file/action records with one record for
> each file action that triggered the notification, up to the
> maximum as determined by the parameter count field in the
> request. If the number of records would be greater that the
> max allowed, the samba server should return a
> STATUS_NOTIFY_ENUM_DIR error.
> The samba notification stuff as written does not keep track
> of which specific files were changed and just *always*
> returns the STATUS_NOTIFY_ENUM_DIR error. This approach
> seems to work fine for handling windows explorer updates,
> but IIS and presumably other applications just drop these
> replies as errors.
Great detective work ! Actaully this is a bug in IIS. The
protocol states that STATUS_NOTIFY_ENUM_DIR is a valid return,
if too many files were changed (hmmm. define "too many" :-).
It would be possible to cause this to break on Windows 2000
servers also, but I imagine that under 'normal' circumstances
few enough files have changed that this doesn't cause a problem
I'll have to think on this some more....
Thanks a *lot* for tracking this down !
More information about the samba-technical