oplocks causing more trouble than benefit ?
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Tue Nov 7 18:38:46 GMT 2006
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 01:42:57PM +0100, Marcello Romani wrote:
> I didn't notice any slowdown after disabling oplocks, but this might be
> because our network and fileserver are usually underloaded.
How did you measure it? Clients tend to behave radically
differently if oplocks are granted. In particular you will
see a lot less round-trips for opening/closing files.
> So my question is: why are oplocks on by default ? Wouldn't it be safer
Because they reduce load on the server and make client
> (and more trouble-free) to turn them off by default and specify under
> which circumstances they might give the performance improvements that
> justify their adoption ?
I don't think that oplocks per se are unsafe. If you google
for oplock problems then you will see that 99% of problems
with oplocks have to do with network problems that Samba can
not do much against.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20061107/797a1458/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical