Merge brlock.tdb and locking.tdb

Jeremy Allison jra at
Wed Nov 1 17:45:41 UTC 2017

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:06:44PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 07:19:21PM +0100, Ralph Böhme via samba-technical wrote:
> > yeah, I was afraid that would be the reason. On the downside, by
> > using seperate dbs we have do the update-num-read-oplocks
> > mumbo-jumbo, but I guess that's still less overhead then unpacking a
> > locking.tdb record for the mandatory brls. Hmpf.
> Just brainstorming: We have the locking.tdb record cache now. Does
> that help here? Maybe the real performance penalty for the
> non-contended workload isn't as bad anymore as it used to be. Of
> course, if a lot of byte range locking activity is going on, things
> go down, but does that matter in real world cases?

Only benchmarking/tests can tell :-).

More information about the samba-technical mailing list