This is not problem of disks, this is problem of Samba (operating systems in network are Windows XP and Windows 7 only, so this should not be problem caused by Windows).
I am asking because of risks and disadvantages. This is same as oplocks - it may be performance tweak, but it is potentially dangerous (data corruption).
Thank you
2009/8/24 JohnS jses27@gmail.com:
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:41 +0200, happymaster23 wrote:
Thank you for replies,
with option "use sendfile = yes" it works great (with good speed), but I am asking why is this option in CentOS disabled as default, even in standard samba build it should be (according to Samba release notes) enabled as default.
So my question is, why in CentOS´s Samba build is this option as default disabled. Is it experimental? Is it potentially dangerous? (Something like oplocks?)
Why is it disabled? You need to ask the "Samba Devel List" that. Just an example an i586 class machine with 4 Nics will saturate a gig E connection easily. Its all all about disk throughput and how many disc spindles you have. Maybe this will explain it to you! :-) Winblows related mostly.
Hint use "man smb.conf"
use sendfile (S) If this parameter is yes, and the sendfile() system call is supported by the underlying operating system, then some SMB read calls (mainly ReadAndX and ReadRaw) will use the more efficient sendfile system call for files that are exclusively oplocked. This may make more efficient use of the system CPU’s and cause Samba to be faster. Samba automatically turns this off for clients that use proto- col levels lower than NT LM 0.12 and when it detects a client is Windows 9x (using sendfile from Linux will cause these clients to fail).
Default: use sendfile = false
JohnStanley
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos