[Samba] Re: How Samba let us down

[jra at dp.samba.org]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:02:03PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

Don't confure the two. Oplocks are nothing to do with share
modes or byte range locks. They're just unfortunately named.

Jeremy.