I'm experimenting this problem with samba 3.0.4 and linux 2.4.26 with ReiserFS (same behaviour with XFS). When I copy (put) a large file (5GB) from a Windows NT terminal server sp6a to the samba-linux box, the md5sum is different between the two file. Files size are identical. I'm using this command to copy these files from windows to samba: net use h: \\samba_box\backup copy priv.edb h:\exchange I have also tried to delete the old files from the samba share, but nothing change: I always get two different md5sum. With smaller files (400MB) md5sum is identical. When I transfer this large file with ftp (proftpd 1.2.9 on Linux), md5sum is ok. These two systems are connected to a 3COM 100bit/s switch. No collision/no error are detected at linux side box. Samba doesn't log anything relevant. No kernel error. Nothing. Samba box is running Slackware 9.1 + kernel 2.4.26 + samba 3.0.4 compiled from sources. I have also upgraded to linux kernel 2.6.5. However this problem hasn't gone away. The md5 check is fine, coping the same file from NT4TSE to a Windoze 2000sp4. Coping the same file from a windoze 2000sp4 to the samba share is ok. So the problem is between NT4TSE and samba. NT4TSE --> SAMBA = KO WIN2k --> SAMBA = OK NT4TSE --> WIN2K = OK Last, I have switched back to samba 2.2.8a (compiled from source) on linux 2.6.5: same behaviour. Other info: http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-May/086020.html http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-May/086026.html http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-May/086054.html http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2004-May/086088.html
I have written log level = 5 on smb.conf and the problem has gone away. (samba 3.0.5rc1 + kernel 2.4.26)
I have increased log level to 9. Here is piece: [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(887) switch message SMBwritebraw (pid 512) conn 0x838f198 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 4] smbd/uid.c:change_to_user(193) change_to_user: Skipping user change - already user [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 8] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(650) ********************************************** posix_fcntl_lock 25 12 4294963200 61440 1 ********************************************** [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1646) fcntl_lock 25 12 4294963200 61440 1 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 8] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(680) posix_fcntl_lock: Lock call failed [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_writebraw(2265) writebraw1 fnum=8313 start=4294963200 num=16580 wrote=16580 sync=0 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 6] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(449) write_socket(22,41) [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 6] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(452) write_socket(22,41) wrote 41 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_writebraw(2328) writebraw2 fnum=8313 start=4294963200 num=44860 wrote=61440 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 6] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1091) got message type 0x0 of len 0x4104 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1092) Transaction 70190 of length 16648 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 5] lib/util.c:show_msg(443) [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 5] lib/util.c:show_msg(453) size=16644 smb_com=0x1d smb_rcls=0 smb_reh=0 smb_err=0 smb_flg=24 smb_flg2=32771 smb_tid=1 smb_pid=51966 smb_uid=100 smb_mid=35584 smt_wct=14 smb_vwv[ 0]= 8313 (0x2079) smb_vwv[ 1]=61440 (0xF000) smb_vwv[ 2]= 0 (0x0) smb_vwv[ 3]=57344 (0xE000) smb_vwv[ 4]= 0 (0x0) smb_vwv[ 5]= 0 (0x0) smb_vwv[ 6]= 0 (0x0) smb_vwv[ 7]= 0 (0x0) smb_vwv[ 8]= 0 (0x0) smb_vwv[ 9]= 0 (0x0) smb_vwv[10]=16580 (0x40C4) smb_vwv[11]= 64 (0x40) smb_vwv[12]= 1 (0x1) smb_vwv[13]= 0 (0x0) smb_bcc=16581 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/process.c:switch_message(887) switch message SMBwritebraw (pid 512) conn 0x838f198 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 4] smbd/uid.c:change_to_user(193) change_to_user: Skipping user change - already user [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 8] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(650) **************************************** posix_fcntl_lock 25 12 57344 61440 1 **************************************** ^^^^^ Why is it smaller? [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 8] lib/util.c:fcntl_lock(1646) fcntl_lock 25 12 57344 61440 1 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 8] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(680) posix_fcntl_lock: Lock call failed [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_writebraw(2265) writebraw1 fnum=8313 start=57344 num=16580 wrote=16580 sync=0 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 6] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(449) write_socket(22,41) [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 6] lib/util_sock.c:write_socket(452) write_socket(22,41) wrote 41 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/reply.c:reply_writebraw(2328) writebraw2 fnum=8313 start=57344 num=44860 wrote=61440 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 6] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1091) got message type 0x0 of len 0x4104 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 3] smbd/process.c:process_smb(1092) Transaction 70191 of length 16648 [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 5] lib/util.c:show_msg(443) [2004/07/15 00:44:33, 5] lib/util.c:show_msg(453) size=16644 smb_com=0x1d smb_rcls=0 smb_reh=0 Running stat file_name I get: root@Mimas:/mnt/data/backup/exchange/exchsrvr/MDBDATA# stat priv.edb File: `priv.edb' Size: 5393883136 Blocks: 8388728 IO Block: 4096 regular file Device: 308h/776d Inode: 7 Links: 1 Access: (0744/-rwxr--r--) Uid: (10000/AIVE\!schedule) Gid: (10000/AIVE\Domain Users) Access: 2004-07-15 06:06:59.000000000 +0200 Modify: 2004-07-14 23:30:36.000000000 +0200 Change: 2004-07-15 00:50:57.000000000 +0200 size is different than blocks*512. Why?
*** Bug 1363 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please retest against a current release and reopen if the issue still exists.
same problem with 3.0.22 and linux 2.4.26 & linux 2.4.32
As you can see blocks*512= 4 295 024 640 root@Mimas:/mnt/data/backup/exchange/exchsrvr/MDBDATA# stat priv.edb File: `priv.edb' Size: 7908368384 Blocks: 8388720 IO Block: 4096 regular file Device: 308h/776d Inode: 87 Links: 1 Access: (0744/-rwxr--r--) Uid: (10002/DOMAIN\administrator) Gid: (10000/DOMAIN\domain users) Access: 2006-05-26 09:15:30.000000000 +0200 Modify: 2006-05-26 09:39:23.000000000 +0200 Change: 2006-05-26 09:39:23.000000000 +0200
I think I have found where the problem is. The problem is the file itself, not is size. Copying another big file (18GB) from that NT4 TSE system to the same samba box is fine. The problematic file is a micro$oft exchange 5.5 database. What kind of information should I give to resolve this bug?
If it's still broken in 3.5, please reopen. 3.0 isn't supported anymore.