[Samba] Re: How Samba let us down

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:38:55AM +1000, Matthew Hannigan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:14:41PM -0700, Marc Jacobsen wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> > Similarly, record locks and share mode locks from SMB clients are both 
> > ignored by NFS clients/other UNIX processes (with the possible exception 
> > of newer Linux systems, they might actually enforce share mode locks). 
> > In theory this could also cause corruption, although in practice it is 
> > almost never an issue.

> I have read in the docs that Samba locks and Unix locks
> _DO_ notice each other, with the caveats that Unix lock
> daemons are sometimes buggy and that Unix locks can only
> lock the first 2^31 bytes of a file.

> Please tell me that they do in fact notice each other.

Oplocks are not part of the traditional lock semantics available on
Unix.  If you aren't running a kernel (Irix or Linux) that implements
oplocks, you MUST NOT use oplocks if the files will be accessed by
applications other than Samba.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20021024/3e25c428/attachment.bin