[Samba] Troubleshooting poor (small) random read performance -- serverid.tdb?
Ray Van Dolson
rvandolson at esri.com
Fri Jun 20 10:25:57 MDT 2014
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 08:37:18AM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 02:48:52PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > We're using strict locking = no at the global level and locking = no at
> > the share level. The latter option is where we get good performance
> > improvements for this workload.
> So it's really byte range locks that bite you. Can you take a network
> trace of one client? It will reveal your data, it will be huge, but it
> might provide valuable input for us to reproduce and eventually fix the
> issue with brlocks for you in a proper way. "locking=no" is not a good
> idea except for special use cases :-)
I believe I can share a trace -- will confirm. Should I open a bug for
this against 4.1.8 for better tracking?
I may be misunderstanding some of the risks of using locking=no, but at
least with our read only workload (share is set to read only -- and we
could even set the underlying file system to read only to minimize risk
from some local process mucking things up), we felt we were pretty
More information about the samba