No subject

Mon Dec 1 11:34:25 GMT 2003

Back on the server, I then edited the picture with xv. I used linux, not
samba, to call up the image in xv. I then  reinserted the image in
powerpoint but got the old picture. Ergo,
windows had cached the file and linux did not inform samba it was updating
the file, so samba let windows continue to cache it. I then did the same excercize, but
this time using samba to open up and save the file with xv. This time, the
reinsertion showed the updated image. This is just how things ought to go.
What this tells me is that it is highly dangerous to use anything but samba
to access a file which might be shared over a network with windows clients
and samba. Would this mean that NFS would be a really bad idea to mix with
Could this sort of error account for some reports of file corruption?
Another example of locking not working.
I called up an image from a windows client in paint. smbstatus said it was
locked. But, I called up the same image in linux, going through samba, and
saved it to the same file name. At that point, windows did not show any
locked files. Ergo, paint does not lock files.
I tried the same thing with Word. Word does lock the file, and didn't allow
me to write to the file with linux going through samba.
Now, the question is, if the application doesn't lock the file, can samba
lock the file to prevent simulataneous editing of a file by two different

More information about the samba mailing list