Performance testing w BackupExec, comments requested.

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:20:01PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 03:18:15PM -0500, derrell at samba.org wrote:
> > Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> writes:

> > >> >Now I realize this is not a real world test, and it's not a very good
> > >> >benchmark, but why not turn sendfile back on for kernels later then
> > >> >2.6.15?

> > > Good point ! The problem is how do we know what kernel we're
> > > running on.....

> > Here's one option:

> > The uname(2) system call conforms to SVr4, SVID, POSIX, and X/OPEN but is not
> > available in BSD4.3.  If this call exists (configure test) and the "sysname"
> > field is "Linux" and the "release" field, parsed from a string like
> > 2.6.8-2-686, shows the release to be greater than 2.6.15, then enable else
> > disable.

> Ugh. That's *horrible* :-). Tempting though.... :-).

> No, this really is something vendors should address (IMHO).

Well, as Lawrence's vendor, the only way Debian would be addressing this
would be by adding the uname check, so that we don't have to force the user
to upgrade the kernel before installing a samba update...

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20060125/a74e5581/attachment.bin