serverid(s)_exist, critical path work.
ira at samba.org
Thu Feb 7 04:13:31 MST 2013
>From Andrew Bartlett's review on IRC:
Why remove TDB, isn't that a step backwards?
In most cases, yes. In this one no. Performance clearly is improved, and
semantics aren't impacted. In the general case I don't recommend this
You assume no PID over 1000000?
Yes, the code does. In theory you could make it a tunable, but I suspect
the bugs it would introduce would be worse than the cure. The whole thing
should be hidden behind a config parameter probably, but it should not be a
"toggle" you can flip once you start smbd.
The if (cache == NULL) right under where it is declared equal to NULL?
Bad merge fragment. Will be cleaned up. There should also be a continue;
at the end of the if block @ line 501. (Inside the if, but beneath the
I'll look over things again with this feedback, and get a new rev out.
Andrew, feel free to clean up my comments as needed. But I think I
captured what you said, here.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Ira Cooper <ira at samba.org> wrote:
> This patch should remove TDB from the critical path in serverids_exist,
> for the non-clustered case.
> This patch has NOT seen extensive testing. It is a prototype meant to see
> what people think about the concept.
> For 3.6 a similar patch along with some other tweaking about doubled my
> site's performance. But this patch was a key part of getting there. That
> patch has been heavily tested.
> Opinions? I suspect that moving the check up the function would result in
> the removal of some calls, but I don't think there's other significant
More information about the samba-technical