strict allocate
Björn Jacke
bj at SerNet.DE
Tue Dec 1 11:01:29 MST 2009
Hi,
On 2009-12-01 at 09:33 -0800 Jeremy Allison sent off:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:56:59PM +0100, Björn JACKE wrote:
> > It might be a good idea to change the default of strict allocate to "yes". This
> > makes out-of-quota situation less error prone and scenarios like in that article
> > will improve, too.
> >
> > Has anyone strong feelings against that change of defaults?
>
> Yes, don't do this. It's improves performance for some
> cases, but kills performance for others.
and it avoids samba's misbehaviour when quota limits are reached.
> It's an ext3-only
> fix as well, which doesn't work for ext4.
it fixes ext3 - and with ext4 we'll see no performance penalty at all when
posix_fallocate/fallocate would be used.
> Admittedly ext3
> is our most common filesystem for now, but that won't always
> be the case.
see above. With filesystems like ext4 or xfs we have no overhead for
preallocation of space.
> > In addition to that: When available, we could do allocation with
> > posix_fallocate(), which has the additional benefit that with recent
> > Linux
> > kernels and advanced filesystems, allocation is being done at
> > kernel/filesystem
> > layer via fallocate with quasi zero overhead.
>
> Look at https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6942
> where there is a patch I did a while ago (modified since
> then I think) that changes strict allocate to a tri-state
> where the setting "partial" does most of what you want.
correct me if I'm wrong but it's mostly a workaround for the extreme
framenatations problem. it doesn't fix the we-run-out-of-quota situation and
the fallocate for ext4 and xfs is also not yet there.
Cheers
Björn
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list