Andrew Dunstan schrieb:
> problem area found. see below.
> Reini Urban wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan schrieb:
>>> Here is some more info. Below is a trace from dropdb. There is a loop
>>> around the rmdir() calls which I have set to time out at 600 seconds.
>>> The call eventually succeeds after around 300 seconds (I've seen this
>>> several times). It looks like we are the victim of some caching - the
>>> directory still thinks it has some of the files it has told us we
>>> have deleted successfully.
>>
>> 300 secs (!) fs timeout is really broken.
>> Looks more like a locking or network timeout issue.
>> What error codes does unlink(3) return?
> success.
Oops! 5min timeout for success is certainly problematic.
>> Why don't you use DeletFileA() instead of unlink()?
>> Or even better, why don't you use this delete on close snippet instead:
> [snip]
>
> Before I tried anything like that I tried one more thing. I disabled the
> background writer and the problem stopped. So now we know the "culprit".
Good! Relieve.
>> It should only happen a ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION on NT systems with
>> such a long timeout. This is then a concurrency problem. win95 will
>> not return ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION, only ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED
>>
> We don't support W95/W98/WME at all. The tests were done on XP-Pro.
Ah sorry. I forgot.
--
Reini Urban
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
