similar to: problems with oplocks = false in 2.0 beta version

I have a samba server 1.9.18 in linux redhat 5.1 I use WinNt4 to see directory in the linux host. in windows nt, the command "net view" show "\\tahiti" the command "net view \\tahiti" show " l'erreur systeme 86 a eu lieu le mot de passe reseau sp?cifi? est incorrect" What is the solution? COUTEL Jean-Francois 01 40 90 30 50

All, Here is the output of smbstatus after I have opened up the file on the PC: /usr/local/samba/bin [184] ./smbstatus Samba version 1.9.18p10 Service uid gid pid machine ---------------------------------------------- dave dave staff 972 syscon2 (137.51.150.63) Tue Dec 15 15:43:27 1998 No locked files Share mode memory usage (bytes): 1048464(99%)

This is a corrected version of an incorrect message sent previously. *Sorry for this*. This message replaces references to lock (in the old message) with lseek. (Actually locking problems have a special position in my mind, at least for the last 3-4 years, when I am programming in heterogenous networks. But that's another story...) WELL, HERE IS THE CORRECTED MESSAGE: NOTE: I have

I'm sure I'm missing something, but I can't seem to get NUT working on FreeBSD. bryce at tahiti[/usr/local/etc/nut]>cat ups.conf [belkin] driver = usbhid-ups port = auto vendorid = 050d #productid = 0751 bryce at tahiti[/usr/local/etc/nut]>s /usr/local/libexec/nut/usbhid-ups -DDDDD -a belkin Network UPS Tools - Generic HID driver 0.34 (2.4.1) USB communication driver 0.31

Greetings All, I have tried everything I can think of and can not seem to stop the PC from cacheing a local copy of a file retrieved over a samba share. I have tried oplocks = false and also setting veto oplocks = /*.txt/ Whatever I try the PC still shows me the old version of a file after I modify it on the unix side. If anyone can see anything wrong with my smb.conf file please let me know.

Still trying to get it running. Updated CentOS 7, ATI video card, trying to use the radeon driver, and, using the previous kernel, X appears to come up, but gdm fails; with the 514 kernel, X fails to start. And here's a twist: I just rebooted, with radeon.modeset=1 on the kernel line... and for no reason I know of, I get *six* logs, Xorg.[0-5].log. Does this suggest anything to anyone? I

phl@cyways.com wrote: > > >From the Samba 2.0 beta announcement: > > 5). Cross protocol data integrity > --------------------------------- > > An open function interface has been defined to allow > "opportunistic locks" (oplocks for short) granted by Samba > to be seen by other UNIX processes. This allows complete > cross protocol (NFS and SMB) data

Hi Mr. Liu, Thanks for your quick reply. I compiled the code with the libclc_trunk and linked the bitcode file under $LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc. After looking into the libclc, it is currently using the new workitem intrinsics (commit ba9858caa1e927a6fcc601e3466faa693835db5e). In the linked bitcode ($LIBCLC_DIR/built_libs/tahiti-amdgcn--.bc), it has the following code segment,

Dear Developers, I compiled a OpenCL kernel before (on Nov. last year) like __kernel void g(__global float* array) { array[get_global_id(0)] = 1; } with libclc, which would originally use the instrinsics like llvm.r600.read.local.size.x(). I executed the generated object file with one version of the hsa-runtime [1] provided by Mr. Stellard, when there was more than one workgroup, the output

On the Configuration refrence page the listen setting is descriped thusly: listen Whether puppetd should listen for connections. If this is true, then by default only the runner server is started, which allows remote authorized and authenticated nodes to connect and trigger puppetd runs. The question is when listen is set to true, does puppetd only listen for remote calls or will it listen for

24.01.2023 20:09, Jeremy Allison via samba wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:38:29PM +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >> >> Here we've two files open, with kernel oplocks = yes (hence it is LEASE(), - >> before I enabled kernel oplocks, it was LEASE(RH) or LEASE(RWH)). > > Kernel oplocks do not support SMB2+ LEASES. So you're > just seeing old

I've modified the contention limit in attempt to troubleshoot this, thinking that perhaps the client may be requesting multiple oplocks for whatever reason. The client is still not getting an oplock without specifying 'fake oplocks = yes'. I'm open to any ideas for troubleshooting. I've also checked to see if oplocks are explicitly disabled on the client, and they are not.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:33:57AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: >>@Michael: move the kernel oplocks setting to the global section, then things may start to work as expected. > >With kernel oplocks = yes in [global] but without mentioning >smb2 leases, this thing behaves in a way similar to when setting >smb2 leases to no (also globally, as it is a global parameter), -- >I see

The kernel on my server appears to be refusing oplocks altogether. Setting 'kernel oplocks = no' resolved the issue. Is there any caveats I should be aware of? - Chris Wagner -----Original Message----- From: samba-bounces+chriswagner=amyskitchen.net@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-bounces+chriswagner=amyskitchen.net@lists.samba.org]On Behalf Of Chris Wagner Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Hi folks I'm running two Samba servers. One is on Ubuntu 5.10 (samba-3.0.14a-6ubuntu1), the other is SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (samba-3.0.20b-3.4). The Ubuntu box is on my local network, and the SLES box is across a WAN with an intervening WAFS appliance with TCP acceleration. Neither set-up seems to grant an oplock to the client unless I turn on 'fake oplocks'. I've set

Hi! I'm trying to understand how various ways to grant a file lease to (windows) clients works. Especially in context when files are being modified locally on the linux filesystem. For example, there's this wording in man smb.conf: kernel share modes ... Kernel share modes provide a minimal level of interoperability with local UNIX processes and NFS operations by

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 08:29:17PM +0300, Michael Tokarev via samba wrote: >24.01.2023 20:22, Ralph Boehme via samba wrote: >>What Samba version is this? This: >> >>>LEASE() >> >>... looks broken: the handle oplock/lease state claims to be a >>lease, which means the client didn't request an oplock but a lease >>which should not have happened in

Am 13.06.2017 um 02:05 schrieb Ilia Mirkin: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Roland Scheidegger <sroland at vmware.com> wrote: >> FWIW surely on nv50 you could keep a single mad instruction for umad >> (sad maybe too?). (I'm actually wondering if the hw really can't do >> unfused float multiply+add as a single instruction but I know next to >> nothing

Hello, We are running some legacy software that instructs us to, via Windows registry settings, disable all oplocks and SMB2 entirely on each Windows workstation that connects to the Samba share where the software is hosted. The software maintainers give dire warners of corruption, etc., if oplocks (and SMB2) are left enabled. We?ve run this software off of a Samba share for 20 years and have

Hello, I'm trying to disable oplocks on our system. Is it sufficient to set: oplocks = no level2 oplocks = no or do I need to also set kernel oplocks = no ? What would be the effect of keeping kernel oplocks = yes if the first two are disabled. running a testparm shows that this is set to yes by default Thanks in advance, Dennis