Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:07:59 +0100
- From: Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:43:42PM +0100, Alex Still wrote: > I think I found it. > Samba-3.0.28 calls set_filetime() from real_write_file(), which 3.0.8 isn't > doing. > set_filetime -> utimes -> nfs SETATTR (in my case) > After removing that bit from real_write_file, I get exactly the same > performance I had before. Now, I realise this has probably been put there > for a reason... > > Stuck now, any advice on the matter appreciated It was put there to properly support the so-called sticky write time feature that for example Excel depends upon. Stefan Metzmacher has written a patch that needs to be merged that avoids those utime calls by putting the relevant data into locking.tdb. We need to take some time to shape up that patch a bit and merge upstream though. Volker
Attachment:
pgppobFNw0LrG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- From: Alex Still
- Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- From: Herb Lewis
- Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- References:
- [Samba] Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- From: Alex Still
- [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- From: Alex Still
- [Samba] Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- Prev by Date: Re: [Samba] Re: pam_mkhomedir.so not working.
- Next by Date: Re: [Samba] Samba/LDAP Question
- Previous by thread: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- Next by thread: Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)
- Index(es):