similar to: oplock problem (PR#18690)

Unknown recipient ----- Original Message ----- From: <samba@samba.org> To: Multiple recipients of list SAMBA <samba@samba.org> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 1:02 AM Subject: SAMBA digest 2158 > SAMBA Digest 2158 > > For information on unsubscribing see http://samba.org/listproc/ > Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) msaccess and samba prob solved -

TO THE SAMBA TEAM: MAY YOUR TRIBE BE HERE FOREVER! YOU' SIMPLY GREAT BUT i CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY YOU A PIZZA BUT OUR NATIVE PIE "BUKO (YOUNG COCONUT) PIE" IS BETTER! i HAVE BEEN USING SAMBA 1.9.16P9 AND STILL ALRIGHT. PERHAPS I'LL DO CHANGE TO SAMBA 2.0 AND THIS IS A LONG WAY! i DID TRIED SAMBA SINCE MY OFFICE CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY NFS TO SERVE AT LEAST 20 PCs AND

I got mcp mag a day or two ago, Great writeup!! I was a little surprised that they ran such a glowing review of samba, with some of the negative implications on NT. It is very nice to see Microsoft show an interest in interoperability. -Steve Roylance > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Allison [SMTP:jallison@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 6:41 PM >

Hello! I need help (but who doesn's huh? :-) ) I meant to run one program - Money2000 (no, it is _not_ program from Microsoft) together with samba on linux, but i have problems with oplocks. This program is installed locally on win9x/NT and shares its databases. We tried to place databases on novell, on NT server and on win95 acting as server and everything worked fine. But when we tried

Phillip.Link@alcatel.fr wrote: > The problem > ----------- > I've been trying to install the latest samba distrib (2.0.5a) on a hpux > 10.20 machine, but the connection times out, apparently because of > shared memory access. > > Trying to make an smbclient connection (or using the windows nt explorer > to connect generates the following log.smb (smbd launched as smbd

Jay.Anderson@dw.deere.com wrote: > I believe the problem that occurs is that oplocks are left hanging on > the server, and are never removed. After a period of time, all the > shared memory that is allocated to file locking is filled, and the > server starts sending garbage back to the clients when they request > locks, confusing the clients and creating all sorts of strange

Reading the comp.protocols.smb newsgroup sometimes has its benefits :-). Someone just posted there that they improved the speed of their Win9x systems by a factor of 15 against a Samba server by applying the patch to *all* versions of Win9x (*NOT* NT) described in Microsoft knowledgebase article : Q236926 -found at :

brianm@et.byu.edu wrote: > > We have a system that uses SAMBA on HPUX 10.20 systems as servers and > primarily NT4 Clients. We do however, have a few 9x boxes. We are > running with Encryption on the servers, so no modifications are made to > the registries of either types of windows boxes. > > This is my problem: We were running fine on 2.0.3, but when I upgraded >

Hi all. I know this has probably been asked before, but I need a quick answer, and didn't find anything on the net. Has anyone done any benchmark comparisons of server speed from Win95 clients, accessing files on a Samba 1.9.17p1 server share, as compared to an NT Server, running on the same server hardware? If so, how did Samba 1.9.17 measure up to the NT server? I need an answer to this,

OK, med 19:00 sv tid /Lennart At 13:05 1998-11-07 +1100, you wrote: > SAMBA Digest 1867 > >For information on unsubscribing see http://samba.anu.edu.au/listproc >Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) Re: nis homedir troubles > by Jeremy Allison <jallison@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com> > 2) calling all Samba vendors! > by Andrew Tridgell

> Further to my previous post, I have made an interesting discovery. This > particular slowdown only occurs from clients that are running > Windows 98. The Windows98 explorer (and possibly other programs) incorrectly set the "sync" bit in write requests to network shares. This causes an enormous slowdown as Samba (quite correctly) does a fsync() on the file after each write.

mjt@tls.msk.ru wrote: > > I posted some messages about this, but there is still NO RESPONCE AT ALL!! > As I see, more and more users encountered this problem -- > oplocks code in 2.x (starting from all betas and now in 2.0) DOES NOT WORK!!! > > David! You can place "oplocks = no" into your [global] section and all > will be fine. But problem is opened! > There

btenison@dibbs.net wrote: > > I keep getting the following in the log files now that we've upgraded to > the latest cvs 2.0 branch. Any ideas what we can do to fix this? > > Mar 23 08:45:34 gate smbd[22692]: [1999/03/23 08:45:34, 0] > smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(773) > Mar 23 08:45:34 gate smbd[22692]: oplock_break: end of file from client > Mar 23 08:45:34 gate

Hi all, Someone just reported on the mailing list that upping "oplock break wait time" parameter from the default of 10 ms to 100ms fixed oplock break problems with Windows 98. If anyone is still having this problem with 2.0.6 could you try this fix and let me know the result. I want to find out if it improves things enough to make it the default. Regards, Jeremy Allison, Samba

Hi, Anyone know where I can get a .tar.gz of 2.0.2? I'd like this version, since the PDC code is reportedly more stable than 2.0.3. Or has this been fixed in 2.0.3? Thanks, -- Seeya, Paul ---- plussier@baynetworks.com Broadband Technology Division - Bay Networks (now a Nortel Company, Eh? :) If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!

bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu wrote: > > this samba was built on a solaris 2.5 system and was running fine on a > solaris 7 3/99 system. when i installed the solaris 7 5/99 maintenance > update something broke. > > log.smb: > > [1999/08/06 11:04:41, 1] smbd/server.c:main(628) > smbd version 2.0.5a started. > Copyright Andrew Tridgell 1992-1998 > [1999/08/06 11:36:49,

I recently installed samba 1.9.18p8. Since then, we get the following error: "No domain server was available to validate your password. You may not be able to gain access to some network resources." after the server has been running for >48 hours. If I stop and restart the server, everything is ok again. Our samba server is a Sun Ultra 2170 running Solaris 2.5.1. Any help will

sean@compu-aid.com wrote: > > To any one who is using Red Hat Linux 6.0 (or, presumably, any glibc2.1 > system) > > I recently installed a new RH 6.0 system on Intel. After installing my > samba and my network application I noticed that I was experiencing oplock > problems that were not present with the same version of Samba on my RH 5.2 > systems and caused my

I encountered an bug in samba 2.0.7. With the config option "logon home = \\%N\%U\profile" in smb.conf and roaming profiles, smbd panics when the share "%U" is not listed in smb.conf. I had some users for which i forgot to enter the accompanying share in smb.conf. When such a user logged in or logged off, smbd paniced with signal 11. While on logging off the profiles where

I've exactly the same problem. My config looks similar to yours: 1 samba as wins server (wins support=yes" on one segment, 1 samba as "wins server client" (wins server = xxx). The "wins server client" never discards machines from segment 1. I looked at the browse.dat and the wins.dat on the server on segment 1. There are no entries of the shutdowned maschines. Only in