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 at 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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >