[Fwd: [Samba] "strict locking = yes" 3.X Default?]
jra at samba.org
Tue Sep 28 05:03:46 GMT 2004
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 03:29:28PM -0700, eric roseme wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Samba] "strict locking = yes" 3.X Default?
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:29:11 -0700
> From: eric roseme <eroseme at emonster.rose.hp.com>
> To: samba at lists.samba.org
> Re-post from samba to samba-technical
> On Samba 3.x the "strict locking" default is yes (loadparm.c). On 2.2
> it was no. I am just wondering why the change was made. "strict
> locking" can affect performance significantly, so I am assuming that
> there is a benefit for the average user that offsets whatever the
> performance affect is.
> Any comments?
Actually it was done to increase correctness of the server.
Windows server have this as default - we wanted to get much
closer to Windows with the 3.0.x release.
> Also, the SWAT help for strict locking on 3.x still says the default is no.
That's a bug :-(.
More information about the samba-technical