samba - Jul 2005 - Seeking help with Samba shares & OPLOCKS & Quickbooks databases

I thought I had things figured out, but guess not.  I have multi-user
Quickbooks databases that functioned fine on a Novell server but are
behaving badly on a Samba share.  I have created a separate share for the
Quickbook databases, users are running Win XP Pro, latest patches, and the
Quickbooks application installed on the desktop.  It is a multiuser version.

Server is RedHat ES 3, Samba 3.0.14.  Here is the config for the Quickbooks
share:

[accting]
 comment = Accounting Volume
 path = /accting
 writeable = yes
 valid users = a list of valid users
 level2 oplocks = no
 veto oplock files = /*.*db/*.ldb/*.mde/*.xls/*.QB*/*.*/
 blocking locks = no
 locking = no
 strict locking = no
 share modes = no

The first user opens the database, and as soon as the second person attempts
to access the same database, the database is corrupting and crashing.

Does anyone else out there have a similar setup or experience that works and
can help me resolve my issue??

Much thanks!

Liz

Liz Ackerman wrote:
>I thought I had things figured out, but guess not.  I have multi-user
>Quickbooks databases that functioned fine on a Novell server but are
>behaving badly on a Samba share.  I have created a separate share for the
>Quickbook databases, users are running Win XP Pro, latest patches, and the
>Quickbooks application installed on the desktop.  It is a multiuser version.
>
>Server is RedHat ES 3, Samba 3.0.14.  Here is the config for the Quickbooks
>share:
>
>[accting]
> comment = Accounting Volume
> path = /accting
> writeable = yes
> valid users = a list of valid users
> level2 oplocks = no
> veto oplock files = /*.*db/*.ldb/*.mde/*.xls/*.QB*/*.*/
> blocking locks = no
> locking = no
> strict locking = no
> share modes = no
>
>The first user opens the database, and as soon as the second person attempts
>to access the same database, the database is corrupting and crashing.
>  
>
Yes, because you need to run your oplocks.  You have two solutions.  The 
easiest to implement is the force user line in smb.conf.

The harder but cleaner way is to use acl's.
>Does anyone else out there have a similar setup or experience that works and
>can help me resolve my issue??
>
>Much thanks!
>
>Liz
>  
>

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 12:54:03PM -0600, Liz Ackerman
wrote:
> 
> [accting]
>  comment = Accounting Volume
>  path = /accting
>  writeable = yes
>  valid users = a list of valid users
>  level2 oplocks = no
>  veto oplock files = /*.*db/*.ldb/*.mde/*.xls/*.QB*/*.*/
>  blocking locks = no
>  locking = no
>  strict locking = no
>  share modes = no
> 
> The first user opens the database, and as soon as the second person
attempts
> to access the same database, the database is corrupting and crashing.
man smb.conf /locking \(S\)
Be careful about disabling locking either globally or in a specific
service, as lack of locking may result in data corruption.

Well, switch locking back.

-- 
		Udvozlettel
				    Zsiga

Liz Ackerman wrote:
>I thought I had things figured out, but guess not.  I have multi-user
>Quickbooks databases that functioned fine on a Novell server but are
>behaving badly on a Samba share.  I have created a separate share for the
>Quickbook databases, users are running Win XP Pro, latest patches, and the
>Quickbooks application installed on the desktop.  It is a multiuser version.
>
>Server is RedHat ES 3, Samba 3.0.14.  Here is the config for the Quickbooks
>share:
>
>[accting]
> comment = Accounting Volume
> path = /accting
> writeable = yes
> valid users = a list of valid users
> level2 oplocks = no
> veto oplock files = /*.*db/*.ldb/*.mde/*.xls/*.QB*/*.*/
> blocking locks = no
> locking = no
> strict locking = no
> share modes = no
>
>The first user opens the database, and as soon as the second person attempts
>to access the same database, the database is corrupting and crashing.
>
>Does anyone else out there have a similar setup or experience that works and
>can help me resolve my issue??
>
>Much thanks!
>
>Liz
>  
>
Turning off opportunistic locking is one thing but you need to leave 
regular locking on.  They are 2 different animals and without locking no 
shared database will work.