2.5 readpages doubles cifs vfs large file copy performance vs. 2.4

David Collier-Brown -- Customer Engineering David.Collier-Brown at Sun.COM
Wed Jul 2 12:38:53 GMT 2003

Steven French wrote:
> Since the disk subsystems are not really fast enough, the files on the
> server side are cached to get results this good.   Interestingly Samba
> server itself (vs. nfsd) did not seem to be a big problem from the
> performance perspective but rather the main difference for this kind of
> test is just having the server not sitting idle waiting to receive a new
> read request (unlike cifs client, nfs client issues more than one read
> request at a time which helps there). 

   Out of curiosity, do you expect to see a corresponding improvement
if you issue reads in suitable stripe sizes?  Jeremy did a write cache
buffer for RAID disks which provides a substantial improvement
in speed on a Solaris system, but said something which made me think
that it wouldn't help as much on Linix.  I just did a read cache
and saw Solaris improvements, but haven't set up a Linux testbed.
   So I wonder where the bottlenechs are likely move to after the
system can saturate a mongo ethernet (:-))

David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems DCMO          | some people and astonish the rest.
Toronto, Ontario               |
(905) 415-2849 or x52849       | davecb at canada.sun.com

More information about the samba-technical mailing list