Samba logs and locks in tmpfs filesystem (Solaris)?

[David Collier-Brown]

David Lee wrote:
> So we backtracked to the more efficient code in 2.0.x.  This eased matters
> greatly.  But now even more folk are here, applying more load:  we are up
> to 700+ simultaneous connections (and envisage pushing towards 1,000).
> We are still seeing this avalanche effect, even under 2.0.x.
> 
> Part of our speculation about 2.2.x code was contention for the tdb
> databases.  Under 2.0.x, of course, it is not "tdb", but there is an
> equivalent file "STATUS..LCK" for connections, for which there could still
> be contention.  We seem to get of the order of one connection request per
> second, sustained, on top of the load emanating from within the
> connections themselves.)

	Unix filesystems aren't wonderful at directory
	manipulation: for  Solaris 7 and later, I recommend
	-o logging,dfratime for filesystems containing
	PC user's data.

	Lock files are worse at beating up directories than
	PC users: the idea of putting them on tmpfs sounds	
	very sane!  I wish I'd thought of it.

	Monitor the size of the tdb files, though: if
	you run out of physical memory, the files will	
	be written out to the swap space, thus slowing
	the accesses significantly.  Using a private
	tmpfs with -o size can help here.

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify 
Americas Customer Engineering, | some people and astonish the rest.
SunPS Integration Services.    |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849                 | davecb at canada.sun.com