management of Samba4
David.Collier-Brown at Sun.COM
Mon Jun 6 12:40:08 GMT 2005
James Peach wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:51:09PM +1000, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
>>I also think it is reasonable that the performance monitoring code not
>>be as portable as the smbstatus style of monitoring. The 'list of open
>>files' information needs to be available for all platforms, whereas
>>not being able to do fine grained performance monitoring on systems
>>with no way to setup shared memory is OK by me.
If you don't do the cross-smbd summations inside samba
you don't need to involve shared memory. Using 40
smbtorture clients to pound on a late 2.x system
gave me a good sample and an overhead that was
smaller than my margin of error (~ 2%) when using
buffered asynch I/O.
>>We will eventually build a performance monitoring system for Samba4,
>>but what I proposed earlier today is not it.
> This all sounds perfectly reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
Sun Microsystems, Toronto | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at canada.sun.com | -- Mark Twain
(416) 263-5733 (x65733) |
More information about the samba-technical