Re: [Samba] stale timestamp hell‏

[Chuck T.]

Well, you're right Windoze does the same thing with my batch
file.  But the timing on the editor must be different as I've
never seen the problem editing files on Windoze shares.  
 
The captures show the problem the editor is having.  In both
captures I mounted/mapped the share, opened the test file "e" and
appended a space and then saved it. The first time the editor didn't
complain so I appended another space and saved it again.  The problem
occurred on the second save.  I did the same thing on the Windows
share about 30 times without a failure.  The captures are here:
http://members.cox.net/~skipsfiles/time_stamp_captures.tgz .
I'd say the problem occurs more than 50% of the time.
 
The machines are very similar and both are plugged into the same
gigabit switch with very little network activity.  The traces are 
filtered to show just the applicable traffic.
 
Is there anyway to disable the "correct" behavior and go back to the
"incorrect" but sane behavior of earlier versions of samba? I've
been using Samba since FreeBSD 1.x days without an issue.  Editors
are a religious thing and I worship at the slickedit altar, but
I'm too cheap to buy the Linux version.
 
Thanks!
 
Skip


----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:50:04 -0700
> From: jra at samba.org
> To: freebsdfan at hotmail.com
> CC: samba at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] stale timestamp hell
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 01:26:43PM -0700, Chuck T. wrote:
>>
>> I've been using a Windoze based programming editor (Slickedit) across
>> samba shares for years without any problems (most recently with FC5). I've
>> just started using Ubuntu and I'm now having a problem with timestamps
>> lagging file writes. The net result is my editor almost always
>> thinks another program has modified the file.
>>
>> Today I built and installed samba 3.3.3. from sources and it shows
>> the same problem.
>>
>> The problem is easy to demonstrate with a batch file:
>>
>> ---
>> Z:\home\skip>type test.bat
>> dir e
>> touch e
>> dir e
>>
>> Z:\home\skip>test
>>
>> Z:\home\skip>dir e
>> Volume in drive Z is root
>> Volume Serial Number is 0BF5-02B0
>>
>> Directory of Z:\home\skip
>>
>> 03/25/2009 05:00 PM 2,878 e
>> 1 File(s) 2,878 bytes
>> 0 Dir(s) 60,616,773,632 bytes free
>>
>> Z:\home\skip>touch e
>>
>> Z:\home\skip>dir e
>> Volume in drive Z is root
>> Volume Serial Number is 0BF5-02B0
>>
>> Directory of Z:\home\skip
>>
>> 03/25/2009 05:00 PM 2,878 e
>> 1 File(s) 2,878 bytes
>> 0 Dir(s) 60,616,773,632 bytes free
>>
>> Z:\home\skip>dir e
>> Volume in drive Z is root
>> Volume Serial Number is 0BF5-02B0
>>
>> Directory of Z:\home\skip
>>
>> 04/11/2009 01:11 PM 2,878 e
>> 1 File(s) 2,878 bytes
>> 0 Dir(s) 60,616,773,632 bytes free
>> ---
>>
>> As you can see running touch and then an immediate directory
>> listing shows the old timestamp for the file. When I do a
>> directory manually a second later the timestamp has been
>> updated.
>
> The delayed timestamp on write is correct, it's "what Windows
> does" (tm). Took us a long time to emulate that correctly :-).
>
> To nail this we'd need a comparitive sniff against the same
> save being done on a Windows server, with a note as to when
> the "file was changed" dialog would have appeared against Samba.
>
> Jeremy.

_________________________________________________________________
Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. 
http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A