svn commit: samba r3944 - in branches/SAMBA_3_0/source: lib smbd
idra at samba.org
Thu Nov 25 09:39:36 GMT 2004
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:46, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:06:02PM +0000, jra at samba.org wrote:
> > Fix the problem we get on Linux where sendfile fails, but we've already sent the
> > header using send(). As our implementation of sendfile can't return EINTR (it
> > restarts in that case) use an errno of EINTR to signal the linux sendfile fail
> > after header case. When that happens send the rest of the data and then turn
> > off sendfile. Sendfile should be safe to enable on all systems now (even though
> > it may not help in all performance cases).
> How much does sendfile gain us at all? I've had to debug really nasty problems,
> I scratched my head why samba simply stops responding, making XP reconnect.
> sendfile = no was the very simple answer after hours of staring at sniffs,
> trying to reproduce the errors. If we don't see a huge performance improvement
> I'd VERY strongly argue that we dump sendfile completely. It is just way too
> buggy in common kernels.
Same opinion here, I started setting use sendfile = no in most of my
servers, it's just too sensible to client/network errors.
Simo Sorce - idra at samba.org
Samba Team - http://www.samba.org
Italian Site - http://samba.xsec.it
More information about the samba-technical