adilger at sun.com
Tue Dec 9 00:37:01 GMT 2008
On Dec 08, 2008 18:38 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > Turns out that ext4 doesn't suffer from the slowdown in the
> > first place. The paper is extremly interesting, I'm looking
> > at the implications for our default settings (most users
> > are still using Samba on ext3 on Linux).
> I thought the paper only talked about ext3, and theorized that delayed
> allocation in ext4 might be enough to make the problem go away, but
> they had not actually done any measurements to confirm this
> supposition. Has there been any more recent benchmarks comparing
> ext3, ext4, and XFS running Samba serving Windows clients?
It wouldn't be a bad idea to use this hint in the kernel to call
fallocate(), given the fact that this is used by a number of apps
(i.e. all of them) that predate fallocate().
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
More information about the samba-technical