Merge brlock.tdb and locking.tdb

Mon Oct 30 20:06:44 UTC 2017

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?

Volker

-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de, mailto:kontakt at sernet.de