IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I would assume that...
The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process. :-P

Seriously, my painful recollections are that many Windows programs take out exclusive locks on anything that they open, and those locks block all other operations. So if anyone else wants to open your file for anything, they can cause huge problems.

My first guess would be to look for users who might be opening a file in some kind of editor (or Excel, or whatever else). My second guess would be to ask what happens if your program is trying to move a file that some automated job (eg a virus scan) happens to be looking at.

This information is based on things that used to be a PITA for me quite a few years ago. The default behaviour could well have changed and I have no relevant recent experience.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Grrr...
The "drive" is a Linux share.

Virus scanning is set to look at local disk only.

No one else is accessing it, at least would be incredibly unlikely.
Here are the "permissions":

\n-rw-r--r--    1 spooler  prod 335 Mar 24 14:21 run_16669.2005_21_24_14_21_04.16695.bat\n


The directory itself has more open access to allow the files to be renamed in and out of it by the windows "user", but only the spooler id can open/lock it.

Right now only 3 people can even drill down into that area of the system, and they are not the "type".

Hey Greg: I can have fake locks set at a directory level in samba, right? Or am I forced to do it at share level? Hmmm - need to go research.

New I'm guessing, obviously
But my guess is that Samba makes what Windows think are locks act like what Windows thinks locks should act like. So it doesn't really matter what is actually happening on on the Linux side - just how it looks to Windows.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New I'm guessing, obviously
But my guess is that Samba makes what Windows think are locks act like what Windows thinks locks should act like. So it doesn't really matter what is actually happening on on the Linux side - just how it looks to Windows.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
     File locking problem - (broomberg) - (22)
         I would assume that... - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Grrr... - (broomberg) - (2)
                 I'm guessing, obviously - (ben_tilly)
                 I'm guessing, obviously - (ben_tilly)
         Turn off Opportunistic locking for those files. - (folkert) - (11)
             I was thinking of the same thing - (broomberg)
             Done - (broomberg) - (3)
                 You sure I don't want fake oplocks instead? -NT - (broomberg) - (1)
                     NEVER. - (folkert)
                 Not that I am aware of. Of course... - (folkert)
             And "blocking locks" should be set to off. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (5)
                 Err? - (broomberg) - (4)
                     I've seen it produce time-outs. -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
                     I've seen it produce time-outs. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                         In that case: Done -NT - (broomberg)
                         And double posts, too! ;-) -NT - (Yendor)
         If the various suggestions don't help - (jbrabeck) - (4)
             I hate timing dependant problems! - (broomberg) - (1)
                 First time I saw it was in COBOL class - (jbrabeck)
             Done. And I added another move - (broomberg) - (1)
                 Lemme know if it worked. -NT - (jbrabeck)
         Happens when you delete a file and it's opened elsewhere - (ChrisR)

Prolly need to go back for "reeducation"...
82 ms