DBFs, networks, oplocks
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:25 pm
Hi,
I haven't used DBFs for any significant work for a long time, especially in a multi-user environment. I know people have had issues with DBFs over networks and used oplocks workarounds.
I came across a new option to address this from Ned Pyle, who blogs on "Storage at Microsoft". I thought it would be of interest to some people here.
As background, here is a blog post about SMB1 and its problems.
Stop using SMB1
In an update he says:
if your vendor requires disabling SMB2 in order to force SMB1, they will also often require disabling oplocks. Disabling Oplocks is not recommended by Microsoft, but required by some older software, often due to using legacy database technology. Windows 10 RS3 and Windows Server 2016 RS3 allow a special oplock override workaround now for these scenarios – see https://twitter.com/NerdPyle/status/876880390866190336. This is only a workaround – just like SMB1 oplock disable is only a workaround – and your vendor should update to not require it.
Paul
I haven't used DBFs for any significant work for a long time, especially in a multi-user environment. I know people have had issues with DBFs over networks and used oplocks workarounds.
I came across a new option to address this from Ned Pyle, who blogs on "Storage at Microsoft". I thought it would be of interest to some people here.
As background, here is a blog post about SMB1 and its problems.
Stop using SMB1
In an update he says:
if your vendor requires disabling SMB2 in order to force SMB1, they will also often require disabling oplocks. Disabling Oplocks is not recommended by Microsoft, but required by some older software, often due to using legacy database technology. Windows 10 RS3 and Windows Server 2016 RS3 allow a special oplock override workaround now for these scenarios – see https://twitter.com/NerdPyle/status/876880390866190336. This is only a workaround – just like SMB1 oplock disable is only a workaround – and your vendor should update to not require it.
Paul