[Samba] A samba locking question

Thomas Hannan thannan at pharm-olam.com
Mon Feb 2 19:26:01 GMT 2004


I have a question to tack on to this one -- 

How would I go about compiling Samba such that it either didn't pass
locking requests (for file shares, not TDB's) to fcntl() and just
handled these locks internally for the Windows clients, or at least did
that for locks requested in the 32-64 bit offset range? If I'm not
mistaken, I believe that was the default behavior in the 2.2 series, and
looks like it changed in 3.0.0 (at least in my tests on linux 2.4.x with
glibc 2.2).

Many thanks,

On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 18:24, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 23:55, Patrik Gustavsson wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Maybe this is a stupid question, but any way
> > 
> > Will samba use fcntl locking if level 1 and 2 oplocks is
> > disabled and samba is not compiled with spin-locks enabled ?
> > 
> > I am using Samba on solaris
> Samba uses fcntl() locking in two places.  Firstly, it is used to mirror
> SMB locks, asked for by the client.  Secondly they are used to mediate
> access to tdbs.
> Spinlocks are an alternative (if much less reliable) method for tdb
> mediation.  
> oplocks do not override fcntl locks - but clients that have successfully
> gained an oplock might not ask for an SMB lock, and therefore Samba
> might not attempt to gain the matching fcntl() lock.
> The nasty performance issues in Solaris are due to bad fcntl() lock
> contention performance in Samba's TDB access.  
> Andrew Bartlett
> -- 
> Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
> Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
> Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
> http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net
> ----

> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

More information about the samba mailing list