I noticed that the Release Notes for Samba 3.0.21 say that the oplock
implementation has been rewritten. And we seem to be having problems
with some .exe files we are sharing out as read-only shares. The shares
now only allow the first person to open the executable and run it. Other
users time out with a memory address error. Do I need to specify some
new oplock option for these shares now? I tried specifying *fake oplocks
= yes* on the share, but it didn't fix it. The same configuration
options allow multiple users on a server running 3.0.14
Here's my global locking options:
% testparm -v | grep lock
[snip]
kernel oplocks = Yes
lock spin count = 3
lock spin time = 10
oplock break wait time = 0
lock directory = /var/lib/samba
block size = 1024
veto oplock files blocking locks = Yes
fake oplocks = No
locking = Yes
oplocks = Yes
level2 oplocks = Yes
oplock contention limit = 2
posix locking = Yes
strict locking = Yes
And here's the share defs on a problem share
[firefox]
comment = firefox web browser application for windows
path = /windowsbin/firefox
read only = yes
browseable = yes
guest ok = no
write list = root
thanks,
Ben Donnelly
Nicholas School
Duke University
Ben Donnelly wrote:> I noticed that the Release Notes for Samba 3.0.21 say that the oplock > implementation has been rewritten. And we seem to be having problems > with some .exe files we are sharing out as read-only shares. The shares > now only allow the first person to open the executable and run it. Other > users time out with a memory address error.Take a look at https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3349 The patch will be in 3.0.21a and is _not_ on the patches site yet: http://usX.samba.org/samba/patches/ (http://us1.samba.org/samba/patches/) der tom
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 02:01:51PM -0500, Ben Donnelly wrote:> I noticed that the Release Notes for Samba 3.0.21 say that the oplock > implementation has been rewritten. And we seem to be having problems > with some .exe files we are sharing out as read-only shares. The shares > now only allow the first person to open the executable and run it. Other > users time out with a memory address error. Do I need to specify some > new oplock option for these shares now? I tried specifying *fake oplocks > = yes* on the share, but it didn't fix it. The same configuration > options allow multiple users on a server running 3.0.14Our apologies. There was a bug we failed to find in the final 3.0.21 testing - we're going to have to do a 3.0.21a :-(. Jerry is working on this now Volker has created the patch. I wish we'd caught this before 3.0.21 :-(. Jeremy.