Description of problem:
According to Jeremy of the samba team, it is most likely that kernel oplocks
is broken in the Fedora kernel. Below is the samba list correspondence.
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:12:05AM -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:14:14PM -0400,
>> > wrote:
>> >> I recently upgraded from samba 3.0.10-1.fc3 to 3.0.21b-2 running on
>> >> Today was the first day of a typing class which uses the network
>> >> of Mavis Beacon Typing which depends on file sharing.
>> >> The users are hanging and then getting an error message during
>> >> into the product. In /var/log/message, I can see the following
>> >> for each user similar to:
>> >> [2006/04/24 09:45:24.177906, 0]
>> >> smbd/oplock.c:oplock_timeout_handler(375)
>> >> Oplock break failed for file mavis/Mavis15EEVNet/Mav15UserData/Ali
>> >> Johnson.rec -- replying anyway
>> >> Each user has a different filename for the above message.
>> >> Below is the smb.conf share. Note the force user.
>> > I would suggest upgrading to 3.0.22 as there were some fixes
>> > in this area.
>> > Jeremy.
>> Hi Jeremy,
>> Last night I updated to Version 3.0.22-1.fc5. Kernel is
>> I reenabled oplocks on the mavis share and when the class tried to
>> the Mavis typing program, it again locked up.
>> Based on Leonid Zeitlin's note in a similar thread, I then disabled
>> oplocks and had the class try again. They were all able to get in with
>> oplock errors on the log.
>> The only software accessing these files is samba so I question whether
>> is a kernel problem. Also, with kernel oplocks = no, the oplocks on
>> logon.bat have disappeared.
> No, it is a kernel problem - Samba is about the only application
> that *uses* the kernel lease mechanism so it's not suprising that
> only we notice. I'm guessing FC5 has a bug here.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Requires several users of samba logging into a network share. Another user
has reported a similar problem to the samba mailing list.
Steps to Reproduce:
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 190298 ***