On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 05:47:24PM -0500, Jacob Shivers wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Ralph Böhme <slow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:24:53PM -0500, Jacob Shivers wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:11 PM Ralph Böhme via samba-technical > > ><samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 09:03:41AM -0800, Jeremy Allison via samba-technical wrote: > > >> >Maybe. Changing meta-data semantics on write is fraught with danger, > > >> >and we don't even do that for SMB1 unix extensions. So let's not > > >> >add contraints we don't understand yet please. > > >> > > > >> >My money is on a client bug, as always :-). > > >> > > >> fwiw, just in case you were not aware of this one: > > >> > > >> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13594 > > >> > > >> We also seem to have a bug that a set-eof on a handle with > > >> set-eof-size=existing-size doesn't flush a pending write time update. At least > > >> newer Windows server seem to do that. > > > > > >This seems like what the issue is. > > >The SMB server is uptime mtime after the server actually flushes to > > >stable storage. > > > > not quite, but still a client bug. :) The client uses a second handle to set the > > mtime, it should use the first handle. Or open the second handle after closing > > the first one where it did the write. > > Ahh. > > Thank you very much for your help and for narrowing down the problem > to a client side bug :) Bingo ! I claim my 5 euro :-) :-).
