[Samba] performance regression between 30.14a and 3.0.20

Greg Dickie greg at max-t.com
Mon Apr 24 02:24:37 GMT 2006

Perhaps another data point that might ring a bell. While using 3.0.21c 
and monitoring direct IO vs. buffered IO (on XFS): if you see 40MBs of 
direct IO you will see another 40 MBs of buffered IO on 21c that you do 
not see on 14a. According to a colleague he saw this at one point in a 
previous revision and thought it was a problem of an extraneous sync 
somewhere.... This might explain why you don't see this with your ram disk.


Greg Dickie wrote:
> So this is testing 14a and SVN on the exact same machine with the exact
> same configuration. The only difference is switching samba RPM. I wanted
> to get 14a numbers to cre-confirm the setup but unfortunately the KVM
> seems to have gone on strike. More news as soon as possible.
> Thanks,
> Greg
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 17:32 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 07:26:16PM -0400, Greg Dickie wrote:
>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>   Bad news I'm afraid. Doesn't seem to be much of a difference between
>>> that svn checkout and 3.0.20. Thats just the first run on it, we'll try
>>> and poke it some more.
>>> Thanks alot for your work on this,
>> No problem. But I'm testing here on a Linux ram disk
>> with ext2 as a target to remove any possible variance
>> caused by disk activity and with iometer get equal
>> performance (within noise values) between 3.0.14a and
>> SVN SAMBA_3_0.
>> Jeremy.

More information about the samba mailing list