search for: lslock

...22, 2020 21:47, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > Are you using DLZ_BIND9? There is a bug where it doesn't know the locking rules for those files. No. I am using the internal dns service. > Otherwise, work out which commend it is waiting on (the child) and > what lock that is waiting on (lslocks on linux is what I used to > debug this stuff). There does not appear to be any child process: [root at smb4-2 private]# ps -auwx | grep python root 16001 0.0 0.0 11448 2812 1 R+J 11:01 0:00.00 grep --color=auto python root 14795 0.0 0.6 143248 94216 2 I+J 10:05 0:05.59 /usr/l...

On Thu, July 23, 2020 15:56, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > Clearly there is, as otherwise we could not be in waitpid on it. > The process is not a python process, it will be tdbbackup. The > command line arguments to that process will be instructive. Here it is: root 36800 0.8 0.0 12556 2788 1 SJ 16:49 0:00.01 /usr/local/bin/tdbbackup -s .copy.tdb

...ecovery lock enabled, one node seizes it and never releases it. I'm running Debian Buster, with Lustre+ZFS as the clustered file system for the recovery lock, and using upstream's Samba and CTDB. The lustre clients are mounted with flock, and I've confirmed the lock is being held with `lslock`. Here is the debug information from the "healthy node" (the unhealthy one just says it can't take the lock as it is under contention, so I thought it would be of little use): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yzFdwGKfDAHiVbsj7pcOe-jX4KHpFO2U?usp=sharing Best regards and than...

On 2019-11-11 09:41, Andrew Bartlett wrote: >>> and what is the full backtrace on that tdbbackup? >> >> You mean: compile with debug symbols, attach gdb and get stack trace? >> If so, I'll do it, but I'll need some time. > > Yes, that's what I need. Please, find it below: (gdb) bt #0 0x0000000800fcdab8 in _fcntl () from /lib/libc.so.7 #1

On 2019-11-13 09:30, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > Regarding your problem, on linux I use lslocks to debug from here, you > can normally work out which process is holding the lock, which lock it > is waiting on (if any, marked with a *) and gdb that to work out what > is the matter with it, and perhaps why it is in that situation. Hmm... I have no lslocks on FreeBSD; will lsof do?...

...is enough, but I'll get more info if needed (just > tell me which info). Thanks that shows what is normally the behaviour. I was worried someone had patched fcntl for flock(), as some on Hurd were trying to do (we told them not do, quite sternly). Regarding your problem, on linux I use lslocks to debug from here, you can normally work out which process is holding the lock, which lock it is waiting on (if any, marked with a *) and gdb that to work out what is the matter with it, and perhaps why it is in that situation. I'm not sure if that is available and within your skills set, bu...

...seizes it > and never releases it. > > I'm running Debian Buster, with Lustre+ZFS as the clustered file system for > the recovery lock, and using upstream's Samba and CTDB. The lustre clients > are mounted with flock, and I've confirmed the lock is being held with > `lslock`. > > Here is the debug information from the "healthy node" (the unhealthy one > just says it can't take the lock as it is under contention, so I thought it > would be of little use): > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yzFdwGKfDAHiVbsj7pcOe-jX4KHpFO2U?usp=sharin...

...it. > > > > I'm running Debian Buster, with Lustre+ZFS as the clustered file system > for > > the recovery lock, and using upstream's Samba and CTDB. The lustre > clients > > are mounted with flock, and I've confirmed the lock is being held with > > `lslock`. > > > > Here is the debug information from the "healthy node" (the unhealthy one > > just says it can't take the lock as it is under contention, so I thought > it > > would be of little use): > > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1yzFdwGKfD...

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 12:30:11PM +0000, Antonio via samba wrote: >Dear All, > >I'm sorry to bother the list with a problem that I am not sure >originates in Samba. >File server (no domain) is serving a mix of Windows 10 and Centos 7 >clients, I have strange byte range locks. > >- Server is Samba 4.17.5 / Kernel 5.14.0 Rocky 9.2 > >smbstatus -B gives: >

...m french >> Michel > > It seems the lock held by sanlock isn't being released, so the vm can't > be shut down properly. Maybe some selinux issue? > I've been using virtlockd without troubles for more than a year already > (without selinux). For the locks, see if the lslocks command helps you. > > Franky > > _______________________________________________ > libvirt-users mailing list > libvirt-users@redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvirt-users I do not use selinux too, I preffered sanlock at the beginning because sanlock comes wi...

FreeBSD-12.1p7 jail running Samba-4.10.15 on ZFS. When I run 'samba-tool domain backup offline targetdir=/tmp' I see this: running backup on dirs: /var/db/samba4/private /var/db/samba4 /usr/local/etc Starting transaction on /var/db/samba4/private/secrets At which point samba-tool enters a permanent wait state. 86064 root 1 52 0 131M 78M wait 3 0:01 0.00%