samba + sharing data bases

I have linux samba server (3.0.0-9.2) and clients on linux and win98.
I have a database program witch works on win98 (on dos/dosemu).
Problem is when one person is using this program on linux and some
other person want to use it on win98. Win98's person get massage -
Access denied. Two persons on win98 can use it without any problems,
same like linux + linux. When win98 is first and then linux want use
this prog it's ok too. Why this 4th (first linux then win98) option
dosent work? Here is my smb.conf:
[global]
announce as = Win 98
workgroup = LINUX
server string = samba server
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
username map = /etc/samba/smbusers
log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log
guest ok = no

local master = yes
encrypt passwords = yes
unix password sync = Yes
log level = 3
domain master = yes
preferred master = yes
force directory mode = 0777

dead time = 15
keep alive = 15


security = user
mangled stack = 100
shared mem size = 1048576
max open files = 500

unix password sync = false
update encrypted = no
passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u
passwd chat debug = false
passwd chat = *New*password* %n\n *Retype*new*password* %n\n
*updating*done*
[Finka2]
comment = Finka2
path = /home/Dysk_i/home/
valid users = @pracownicy
force group = pracownicy
read only = no
hosts allow = all
writeable = yes
create mask = 0777
directory mask = 0777

write list = @Finka2


oplocks = False
dos filetime resolution = True

veto oplock files =
/*.DBF/*.dbf/*.exe/*.bat/*.pas/*.arj/*.ntx/*.xls/*.txt/*.doc/*.ind/

greetz

matt wrote:

> oplocks = False
>
> veto oplock files =
> /*.DBF/*.dbf/*.exe/*.bat/*.pas/*.arj/*.ntx/*.xls/*.txt/*.doc/*.ind/

Look into opportunistic locking (oplocks) - that is what you need to change.

Basically, when one of the abovementioned file types is requested over
the network and a Linux client already has it open - the request will be
denied.

IOW this is not the behaviour that win98 exhibits, so to emulate win98
in this respect you have to allow multiple accesses to these file types.

--
J

All your bits are belong to us - again.

On 2004-08-27, matt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> other person want to use it on win98. Win98's person get massage -
> Access denied. Two persons on win98 can use it without any problems,

So, the application uses a shared file as a database (bad thing)
and he can't really do shared access.
I suggest you start looking for an alternative to such program,
since that kind of file-sharing is prone to crashing and corrupting
the database.

Davide

--
We're deep into the holiday gift-giving season, as you can tell from
the fact that everywhere you look, you see jolly old St. Nick urging
you to purchase things, to the point where you want to slug him right
in his bowl full of jelly.
-- Dave Barry, "Simple, Homespun Gifts"

Davide Bianchi wrote:

> On 2004-08-27, matt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>other person want to use it on win98. Win98's person get massage -
>>Access denied. Two persons on win98 can use it without any problems,
>
>
> So, the application uses a shared file as a database (bad thing)
> and he can't really do shared access.
> I suggest you start looking for an alternative to such program,
> since that kind of file-sharing is prone to crashing and corrupting
> the database.

You're not parsing that correctly - he said that two Win98 boxes *could*
use the database simultaneously.

So it's a Samba issue.


--
J

All your bits are belong to us - again.

Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> Davide Bianchi wrote:
>
>> On 2004-08-27, matt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> other person want to use it on win98. Win98's person get massage -
>>> Access denied. Two persons on win98 can use it without any problems,
>>
>>
>>
>> So, the application uses a shared file as a database (bad thing)
>> and he can't really do shared access.
>> I suggest you start looking for an alternative to such program, since
>> that kind of file-sharing is prone to crashing and corrupting
>> the database.
>
>
> You're not parsing that correctly - he said that two Win98 boxes *could*
> use the database simultaneously.
>
> So it's a Samba issue.
>
>

I don't think it's a samba issue, samba just transport the data, but
it's the database that have to provide the support for two applications
reading or writing at the same time. I don't find any problem in two
windoze boxes using samba at the same time.


--

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
(E-Mail Removed)
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAÑA

The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
-- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez wrote:

> I don't think it's a samba issue, samba just transport the data, but
> it's the database that have to provide the support for two applications
> reading or writing at the same time. I don't find any problem in two
> windoze boxes using samba at the same time.

Oh fer chrissakes - read his orignal post!

Win98 + Win98 accessing database - fine.
Win98 + Linux accessing database - not possible.

If it was a problem with the database (or application) then the first
wouldn't be possible either.


--
J

All your bits are belong to us - again.