management of Samba4

[David Collier-Brown]

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.
>

--dave
-- 
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)   |