Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "oplcks".
Did you mean:
oplocks
2020 Apr 16
2
CTDB and locking issues reloaded
On 15/04/2020 16:57, Ralph Boehme via samba wrote:
> Am 4/15/20 um 10:59 AM schrieb Giuseppe Lo Presti via samba:
>> So the question is do you acknowledge the correct behaviour should be to
>> prevent the second client from getting the lock?
>
> yes. My bet: your cluster filesystem device nummer differs across nodes. Cf:
Bingo!
Indeed inodes are (obviously) identical, but
2020 Apr 16
0
CTDB and locking issues reloaded
...> the other locking settings? In particular:
>
> ? posix locking = no
> ? strict locking = no
> ? oplocks = no
> ? level2 oplocks = no
> ? kernel oplocks = no
that depends on your use case. If you sharing SMB only there's probably
no need to enable posix locking or kernel oplcks, but you should not
change the other options from their default values unless you know what
your're doing.
-slow
--
Ralph Boehme, Samba Team https://samba.org/
Samba Developer, SerNet GmbH https://sernet.de/en/samba/
GPG-Fingerprint FAE2C6088A24252051C559E4AA1E9B7126399E46...
2020 Apr 16
2
CTDB and locking issues reloaded
...lar:
>>
>> ? posix locking = no
>> ? strict locking = no
>> ? oplocks = no
>> ? level2 oplocks = no
>> ? kernel oplocks = no
>
> that depends on your use case. If you sharing SMB only there's probably
> no need to enable posix locking or kernel oplcks, but you should not
> change the other options from their default values unless you know what
> your're doing.
Actually the filesystem is also shared via FUSE mounts on Linux clients.
My understanding so far was that posix and strict locking set to yes
would cause an unnecessary perfor...