Hi,
We have an old Win98 box at work that is used for programming GALs and
EEPROMs, however we find that if the file is modified on the Unix side the
Win98 box doesn't notice. This is rather annoying when you are iterating a
design as you can imagine!
One work around is to open a DOS box and 'type' the file - this seems to
force
it to re-get the file.
Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could force it to not cache? File
performance is not an issue on the Win98 box as all it is used for is
GAL/EEPROM programming.
Thanks.
smb.conf is as follows..
[global]
workgroup = GENESIS
server string = Cain
hostname lookups = yes
security = user
encrypt passwords = yes
null passwords = yes
csc policy = documents
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
log level = 2
max log size = 50
wins support = Yes
load printers = Yes
use client driver = Yes
os level = 65
socket options = TCP_NODELAY
dns proxy = yes
dos filemode = yes
nt acl support = no
time server = yes
dos filetimes = yes
dos filetime resolution = yes
fstype = FAT
fam change notify = no
[projects]
comment = Project source code
path = /usr/local/Genesis/work
writeable = Yes
guest ok = Yes
force create mode = 0775
force directory mode = 0775
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au
"The nice thing about standards is that there
are so many of them to choose from."
-- Andrew Tanenbaum
GPG Fingerprint - 5596 B766 97C0 0E94 4347 295E E593 DC20 7B3F CE8C
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20070223/a1efdac0/attachment.bin
Daniel O'Connor wrote:> Hi, > We have an old Win98 box at work that is used for programming GALs and > EEPROMs, however we find that if the file is modified on the Unix side the > Win98 box doesn't notice. This is rather annoying when you are iterating a > design as you can imagine! > > One work around is to open a DOS box and 'type' the file - this seems to force > it to re-get the file. > > Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could force it to not cache? File > performance is not an issue on the Win98 box as all it is used for is > GAL/EEPROM programming. > > TMay be silly, but does the window 98 box have the same idea of time that the samba server does? I've often seen 'make' issues with this over nfs, and I've seen the reverse where windows fusses when it thinks that some other program has modified the file, when it's time is behind the server time. In your case if the windows box is ahead of the samba box, it compares time stamps, and says, "My copy is newer, therefore I don't need to fetch it again" There's a company that sells a windows server called tardis, and a free windows client called K9. Both implement the nntp protocol. K9 is just a service that listens for broadcast times, and is quite happy to listen to unix nntp broadcasts. Set up a single machine on your network to broadcast a timestamp every 64 seconds, set up K9 as a service, and your machines remain in perfect sync.
Daniel O'Connor wrote:> Hi, > We have an old Win98 box at work that is used for programming GALs and > EEPROMs, however we find that if the file is modified on the Unix side the > Win98 box doesn't notice. This is rather annoying when you are iterating a > design as you can imagine! > > One work around is to open a DOS box and 'type' the file - this seems to force > it to re-get the file.You didn't specify what kind of Unix your "Unix Side" is. There's some special kernel magic required for Unix Kernel and Oplocks to co-exist peacefully. I would guess this is what your missing. Asside from trying to get that special magic sauce working, your best bet will be to either disable oplocks entirely (not a bad idea overall) *or* mount the smb/cifs file system on the unix side and modify through Samba. Oplocks (Opportunistic Locks) means that if the client is the only one accessing a file, it caches the data locally and re-uploads the file at a later time. If a second client needs to access the same file, the server will send a request to the first client demanding that it flushes the file and relinquishes the exclusive lock... By modifying the file directly, you are by-passing that mechanism.
On 23/02/2007, at 14:51 , Daniel O'Connor wrote:> We have an old Win98 box at work that is used for programming GALs and > EEPROMs, however we find that if the file is modified on the Unix > side the > Win98 box doesn't notice. This is rather annoying when you are > iterating a > design as you can imagine!> [projects] > comment = Project source code > path = /usr/local/Genesis/work > writeable = Yes > guest ok = Yes > force create mode = 0775 > force directory mode = 0775What happens if you add the following parameter to the [projects] share decription: oplocks = no This should make Samba tell the client (your Win98 box) that it should not attempt to cache the content of files. More on this exact topic here: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2000-August/020202.html Alex