Is kernel oplocks = yes a good default?

Christian Ambach ambi at
Thu Apr 12 10:44:35 MDT 2012

On 04/11/2012 07:37 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote:

>> I have worked on a patchset that converts the parameter into a share
>> option that will allow for more fine-grained configuration.
>> Please have a look at it.
>> It makes the raw.oplocks test pass when using kernel oplocks = no
>> for just the share to be tested.
> Looks very good to me. Do you want to include in a 3.6.x release ?

Thanks for the review and push.

I'll backport it and file a bug against 3.6.x.

>> Additionally, I would like to question the current default value of
>> kernel oplocks: we shouldn't cut off our users from the performance
>> benefits of level II oplocks on one of our major platforms by
>> default.
> It probably is. The default was set to allow for out-of-the-box
> safety for Linux servers exporting the same files by both NFS
> and CIFS, but that's probably less used than I thought at the
> time, and probably can be expertly set by OEM's who know exactly
> what they're doing.
> +1 from me (for this patch, and also flipping the default).

I don't think we should change the default as part of a bugfix.
That should better be done as part of the next major release.

I'll push another patch that changes the default in master.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list