ntdb for Samba 4.2?
rusty at samba.org
Wed Mar 19 23:03:01 MDT 2014
Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:48:33PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Meanwhile, there's no demand to drive it. TDB has problems, but scaling
>> over 3GB isn't the main one. The locking speed has been greatly
>> improved by the addition of inline mutexes; and so you won't notice
>> freelist contention as much. And using dbwrap means the new API doesn't
>> even make the code cleaner.
> Even with mutexes you do notice freelist contention. The
> real kick for this in our tests is the patch from
> yesterday: With TDB_VOLATILE we keep some dead records per
> chain, and while the freelist is blocked we go fishing for
> dead records in other chains. Essentially, this turns each
> chain into a small freelist. This together with mutexes
> really, really rocks. No futex syscalls around anymore even
> for heavily loaded servers. :-)
Yes, this is a really good idea. I'd love to see a benchmark
included in tdb which demonstrated the improvement, too. I'm
not sure tdbtorture will do it.
5f7b481349796cc0e90563ed01353809b403e429 tdb: Fix a tdb corruption
I don't understand how this can corrupt? A test case should be fairly
simple, but I think this change is unnecessary.
The rest of the patches look really nice. By changing to first fit you
may increase fragmentation, but since TDBs are already so fragmented I
don't think it'll be measurable.
More information about the samba-technical