Re: WARNING: smbfs and locking

[Anderson Pereira Ataides <anderson.pa@persogo.com.br>]

> NFS *does* support locking though.
I tried to mount a nfs resource and two linux boxes can't see locks made by 
each other. That means a file locked in a linux box is not seen by the other 
Linux box. Am I missing something?

Reading dosemu docs, it's written that I must mount nfs nolock. What does 
that mean? If nfs "does" support locking, why must I disable this? And in 
fact I really have to export it nolock because if I don't dosemu does not 
work.

In my previous messages I got almost there, because I locked a file in dosemu 
and Windows "could see" this lock. And the other side worked too, but message 
application (DBU in my case) gave was different. So that's why I wrote: "if 
you could make DBU work the same way, I'll be happy".

But now you got me worried. When I thought I was almost there you come and 
say that smbfs have locking problem and probably acessing files through smbfs 
will result in data corruption. Again: am I missing something?

Let me tell you again what I did:
1. Made a smb share
2. Mapped a drive in Windows
3. Mounted smb in Linux box
4. Used DBU to test locking

Was it an accident? I think no, because both Linux and Windows is accessing 
file through samba and so samba itself is locking file. Am I right? Will this 
result in data corruption?

> Now, why does a Win client access the file when DOSEMU "locks" it? This is
> because there actually is no lock at all!
That makes me really believe that samba keeps track of locking itself. Linux 
filesystem does not know what samba is doing.

This week I'll be upgrading my system. I'll install a new version of my 
distro and start testing dosemu again (nfs and smb). I have to do it because 
I am using a 2.2 kernel and for testing purpouses I compiled a 2.4 and boot 
it every time I receive a new dosemu patch.

[]s
Anderson Pereira Ataides