samba - May 2000 - 2.0.7: unsolicited oplock break reply

I've used
oplocks = no
for a long time now, because of the famous "oplock_break" error, but I
decided to give 2.0.7 a try.

I still get "oplock break" errors as before, but this time I got a new
error too:

[2000/05/02 10:04:52, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(976)
  oplock_break: receive_smb timed out after 30 seconds.
  oplock_break failed for file XXXXX/xxxxxx/mailbox.pst (dev = 806,
inode = 434178).
[2000/05/02 10:04:52, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(1050)
  oplock_break: client failure in oplock break in file
XXXXX/xxxxxx/mailbox.pst
[2000/05/02 10:04:55, 0] smbd/oplock.c:request_oplock_break(1204)
  request_oplock_break: no response received to oplock break request to
pid 1214 on port 1432 for dev = 806, inode = 348174
  for dev = 806, inode = 348174, tv_sec = 390e8bf4, tv_usec = 20dd0
[2000/05/02 10:05:14, 0] smbd/oplock.c:request_oplock_break(1204)
  request_oplock_break: no response received to oplock break request to
pid 1214 on port 1432 for dev = 806, inode = 348174
  for dev = 806, inode = 348174, tv_sec = 390e8bf4, tv_usec = 20dd0
[2000/05/02 10:05:21, 0] smbd/oplock.c:request_oplock_break(1204)
  request_oplock_break: no response received to oplock break request to
pid 1214 on port 1432 for dev = 806, inode = 348174
  for dev = 806, inode = 348174, tv_sec = 390e8bf4, tv_usec = 20dd0
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(976)
  oplock_break: receive_smb timed out after 30 seconds.
  oplock_break failed for file XXXXXXXXX/GLB/FLAG.GLB (dev = 806, inode
= 348174).
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(1050)
  oplock_break: client failure in oplock break in file
XXXXXXXXX/GLB/FLAG.GLB
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:process_local_message(568)
  process_local_message: Received unsolicited break reply - dumping
info.
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:process_local_message(583)
  process_local_message: unsolicited oplock break reply from pid 27365,
port 1432, dev = 806, inode = 348174
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:process_local_message(568)
  process_local_message: Received unsolicited break reply - dumping
info.
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:process_local_message(583)
  process_local_message: unsolicited oplock break reply from pid 25082,
port 1432, dev = 806, inode = 348174
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 1] smbd/service.c:close_cnum(583)
  XXX (x.x.x.x) closed connection to service myservice
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:process_local_message(568)
  process_local_message: Received unsolicited break reply - dumping
info.
[2000/05/02 10:05:22, 0] smbd/oplock.c:process_local_message(583)
  process_local_message: unsolicited oplock break reply from pid 31006,
port 1432, dev = 806, inode = 348174

Note that:
- the server is linux 2.2.14/samba2.0.7; it's not the server where I
used to made oplock_break tests. It's another one on another lan. It's
used almost exclusively to store an MSMail PostOffice and personal
mailbox (pst) files (Outlook97/98/2000 of 15/20 users point to it). 
- the client machines are all win9x.

... I know MSMail is bad, but it's not my choice :-))

-- 
giulioo@pobox.com

--On 05/04/2000 5:26 AM +1000 Giulio Orsero wrote:
} [...]
} It's another one on another lan. It's
} used almost exclusively to store an MSMail PostOffice and personal
} mailbox (pst) files (Outlook97/98/2000 of 15/20 users point to it).
} - the client machines are all win9x.
}
} .. I know MSMail is bad, but it's not my choice :-))

Things would almost certainly get better if you switched those
over to IMAP4, which current Outlook Express and (I think!)
Outlook both support.  We have people here using Outlook and
Unix machines for EMAIL storage, but they're using POP/IMAP
for folder and message access, not Samba.

Old adage of mine...if you have a choice between client-server
and file access, pick client-server!

Jim
-- 
Jim Watt                               jimw@peisj.pebio.com
PE Biosystems                          Voice (desk): +1 408 577 2228
PE Informatics Division                Fax:          +1 408 894 9307
3833 North First Street                Voice (main): +1 408 577 2200
San Jose CA 95134-1701

Hello,

At 05.26 04/05/00 +1000, you wrote:
>I've used
>oplocks = no
>for a long time now, because of the famous "oplock_break" error,
but I
>decided to give 2.0.7 a try.
...

I'm almost sure it's a client problem. We had similar problems with a 
customer and turned out it was a buggy hardware lpr print server (Ricoh in 
that case, but most of them are buggy) wich every now and then stopped 
responding to lpq request. Every client connected to that printer, either 
through Samba or directly, stopped responding to anything, even pings, not 
only oplock break requests, until lpq timeout. Some of the clients have 
been reinstalled from scratch just to track where the problems was.
         You know, Win95/98 have a special kind of multitask kernel which 
is able to do no more than *one* task at a time. Anything connected to a 
Win95/98 client that doesn't respond in a timely fashion could lead to this 
kind of problems.

Bye!
--
	Denis Sbragion
	InfoTecna
	Tel, Fax: +39 039 2324054
	URL: http://infotecna.home.dhs.org