[Samba] Locks troubles with samba 2.2.2/.3a

[Pablo Alcaraz]

I installed the cvs 2.2 samba version in a server with 100 clients (w2k 
and win95) the lock problem has been solved! Thank you!

But I've a new problem: Samba is Slow compared with novell and w2k with 
the same hardware.

I'll send a mail with details and numbers.

The lock problem is solved for me at least!

Thank you

Pablo


Gerald Drouillard wrote:

> See the attached message from yesterday.  I submitted a test program a 
> few
> days ago to Jeremy and he was able to find a issue with Samba locking 
> which
> he believes is fixed now.
>
> Regards
> -------------------------
> Gerald Drouillard
> Owner and Consultant
> Drouillard & Associates
> http://www.Drouillard.ca
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: samba-admin at lists.samba.org 
> [mailto:samba-admin at lists.samba.org ]On
> > Behalf Of Pablo Alcaraz
> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:51 AM
> > To: samba at lists.samba.org
> > Cc: Pablo Alcaraz
> > Subject: [Samba] Locks troubles with samba 2.2.2/.3a
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just install 2.2.2 in a Red Hat 7.2 with kernel 2.4.16 on ext 3 + 
> lvm.
> >
> > The problem are the locks!!!!!!
> >
> > I've 5 users working in .dbf + cdx (foxpro) files with an 16 bits
> > application. It accesses to the files via DAO 2.0.  A lot of times in
> > the days the users gets 'currently locked' messages when the 
> application
> > open the dbf's files with read only access!
> >
> > I desactivated the oplocks, but the error continues.
> >
> > With the oplocks activated I get file corruptions inside the dbf's. For
> > example, one dbf was truncated to exactly 65kb...
> >
> > We work with Folio Infobase files. Now, when 2 users access to the same
> > record the second user get the locked messagge 30 sec after the locked
> > happened. This error happen on NT 4 +sp5/6 but it doesn't happen on
> > Windows 2000
> >
> > All these programs work perfectly with Novell and Windows file servers.
> >
> > We can't use samba 2.0.7 because the security is setted to domain.
> >
> > I upgraded to 2.2.3a but the errors continue happening.
> >
> > If someone can suggest *anything*, I'll be really happy to listen
> > him/her. If someone need that I test anything I have hardware to do so.
> >
> > I send you my smb.conf file.
> >
> > Please, CC me :-)
> >
> > Pablo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
>
> Fix for multi-user database corruption problems just checked in.
> From:
>
> Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org>
> Date:
>
> Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:40:20 -0300
> To:
>
> samba-technical at samba.org
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>         I discovered something today. I was given a test
> prgram by "Gerald Drouillard" <gerald at drouillard.ca> that
> allowed me to completely reproduce foxpro database corruption
> to a Samba 2.2.3a server - guarenteed.
>
> Ths same program did not fail when run against a W2K
> server.
>
> It was complaining about lock violations. Now Andrew's
> smbtorture lock tester does a *complete* test of
> our locking code against W2K and we pass as identical,
> so I really doubted that we were getting the lock
> semantics wrong, especially as these were very simple
> lock requests.
>
> One strange thing with the lock tests though - Samba
> is *much* faster at completing the smbtorture tests than Windows
> 2000 - which made me start to wonder.
>
> So I did some digging.......
>
> It turns out that when a Windows client asks for a lock,
> and tells the server that the timeout is zero (ie. don't
> wait to get the lock, just check *right now* to see if
> you could get it), then a W2K server seems to do a very strange
> thing. It apparently *spins* for a short time trying to get the
> lock - it *doesn't* respond immediately ! Samba wasn't doing
> that.
>
> And of course :-), the Foxpro database code seems to be dependent
> on this behavior.
>
> I have just added some code to Samba (SAMBA_2_2 and HEAD)
> to force Samba to spin a parameter dependent number of times
> and also to usleep a parameter dependent time between attempts.
> Currently I have these set to 3 spins and 10usecs.
>
> When I do this the test program passes *perfectly* against
> a SAMBA_2_2 CVS and HEAD server.
>
> So, for people whe are experiencing MS Access and Foxpro
> database corruption problems I'd appreciate it if you
> could check this new code out and test it - I think this
> is the answer (it also fully explains why W2K is so slow
> on the lock tester as well :-) to fix the database corruption
> problems.
>
> Let me know.....
>
> Jeremy.
>