Hello, I'm wondering just how critical it really is to turn off oplocks. It appears that not only Windows 2k server, but also Netware 5 and above defaults to having these enabled. I just spoke with two software companies running databases off of file servers (no database server, just MDAC stuff), and they had never heard of it, much less require it to be disabled. Everything I've read online says to turn them off, but I'm getting a serious performance hit with these turned off, compared to the Netware server that Samba just replaced. Comments??? Bob
oplocks are great when they work. So, they can be left on. But, some times that can result in corrupted files back on the server if the client machine and the server lose contact with each other. Experiment and see. oplocks can be enabled on a per share basis, I believe. A lot may depend on the quality of your network. Joel> Hello, > > I'm wondering just how critical it really is to turn off oplocks. It appears > that not only Windows 2k server, but also Netware 5 and above defaults to > having these enabled. > > I just spoke with two software companies running databases off of file servers > (no database server, just MDAC stuff), and they had never heard of it, much > less require it to be disabled. Everything I've read online says to turn them > off, but I'm getting a serious performance hit with these turned off, compared > to the Netware server that Samba just replaced. > > Comments??? > > Bob > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Hi Bob. I had never had anything to do with the oplocks switch with routine samba shares for file access, but I recently commissioned a new Samba server (Red Hat 8.0) which is running a Windows time and attendance database and we had intermittent problems opening a database session from various Windows PCs. The Windows error was indicating that the database was in use and could not be accessed by another user. Sure enough, when no one was logged in and one workstation accessed the database, they could apparently get in every time. However, this is a multi-user database that everyone should be able to get in to. By applying "oplocks = no" to the samba share, the problem was solved with everyone now able to open a session every time. As speed is not crucial to our usage I have not noticed any speed degradation. Regards, Brad On Wednesday 18 December 2002 17:00, bob@nleaudio.com wrote:> Hello, > > I'm wondering just how critical it really is to turn off oplocks. It > appears that not only Windows 2k server, but also Netware 5 and above > defaults to having these enabled. > > I just spoke with two software companies running databases off of file > servers (no database server, just MDAC stuff), and they had never heard of > it, much less require it to be disabled. Everything I've read online says > to turn them off, but I'm getting a serious performance hit with these > turned off, compared to the Netware server that Samba just replaced. > > Comments??? > > Bob
Yes yuo have right with idea that if hardware is bad then oplocks is bad but my idea is that dbase aplications and engines must known about quality of network hardware, client and status and must have system to repair or disable oplocks if is bad ! Nothing another only dbase engine must realise this operation. If not then this engine is bad and not for network use. Then must exist list of this engines with realy dangerous level... Secondary is that yuo write as more aplication open only one user ??? This is .... then why i need file server? File servers is created primary for use with database aplications! Yes sql is best but how many users of samba or NT uses realy network sql apli? Thats all folks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Morris" <jim@morris-world.com> To: "Marian Mlcoch, Ing" <mm@tsmp.sk> Cc: "Bob Puff@NLE" <bob@nleaudio.com>; "Jean-Paul ARGUDO" <jean.paul.argudo@pack-solutions.com>; "Joel Hammer" <Joel@HammersHome.com>; <samba@lists.samba.org> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [Samba] How important are oplocks?> On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 03:56, Marian Mlcoch, Ing wrote: > > > Thanks Jim for best report of oplock as i read. > > Super can be if you can add info or link about list of dangerousdatabase> > engines for oplocks... > > Btw. Foxpro 2.6 = is ok. > > Foxpro 7.. = bad. > > Clipper = dangerous... > > exist this list for off oplocks? > > Thanks. But unfortunately, its not that simple.I doubt for example that > one version of FoxPro will be good with oplocks, while another is bad. > The entire problem with oplocks and shared-file databases such as dBASE, > FoxPro, Paradox, Access, etc, is with file caching on the client side > (the OPLCOCK), and that client system not breaking the oplock when > requested. Even when the breaks do happen properly, the time to write > the file back out to the server may be significant, causing a LOOOOONG > delay on the 2nd client to open the file. > > When you see oplock problems, I guess you could say it is more client-OS > and hardware dependant than it is on the software involve. It just so > happens that the type of software that runs into oplock related issues > most often is shared-file database software. Most other applications do > not have 2 or more users opening the same file at the same time on a > routine basis. > -- > /----------------------------------------------- > | Jim Morris | Email: Jim@Morris-World.com > | | AIM: JFM2001 > \----------------------------------------------- > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba