From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Samba speed
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:38:02 -0500
Message-ID: <20081208233802.GD2501@mit.edu>
References: <20081208182114.GD29163@samba1> <20081208223924.GB2501@mit.edu> <20081208231233.GK29163@samba1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: samba-technical@samba.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-cifs-client@lists.samba.org
To: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:57432 "EHLO
	thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752143AbYLHXiH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:38:07 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081208231233.GK29163@samba1>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 03:12:33PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> 
> Turns out that ext4 doesn't suffer from the slowdown in the
> first place. The paper is extremly interesting, I'm looking
> at the implications for our default settings (most users
> are still using Samba on ext3 on Linux).

I thought the paper only talked about ext3, and theorized that delayed
allocation in ext4 might be enough to make the problem go away, but
they had not actually done any measurements to confirm this
supposition.  Has there been any more recent benchmarks comparing
ext3, ext4, and XFS running Samba serving Windows clients?

      	    	    	    	  	  - Ted

P.S.  I'll be on the Google campus tomorrow and Wednesday attending
the Ubuntu developer's conference; we should get together for lunch or
dinner or some such....