From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Samba speed Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:39:24 -0500 Message-ID: <20081208223924.GB2501@mit.edu> References: <20081208182114.GD29163@samba1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: samba-technical@samba.org, linux-fsdevel , linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org To: Jeremy Allison Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:34097 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754033AbYLHWj2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:39:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081208182114.GD29163@samba1> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 10:21:14AM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > Here's a really interesting paper from Intel > that they recently brought to my attention. > > http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/windows-client-cifs-behavior-can-slow-linux-nas-performance > > Looks like using XFS for your Linux Samba > server, or setting "strict allocate = yes" can make > a big difference due to sparse file issues. Glibc 2.7 (as shipped in Ubuntu Hardy) has posix_fallocate wired up to the fallocate system call, and ext4 supports delayed allocation as well as preallocation. There are number of userspace applications --- rsync, samba, and most bittorrent applications come to mind --- where use of fallocate would be a big win. - Ted