Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)

2008-02-28 Thread Alex Still
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:07 PM, Volker Lendecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 3.0.8isn't > > doing. > > set_filetime -> utimes -> nfs SETATTR (in

Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)

2008-02-27 Thread Volker Lendecke
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:37:43PM -0800, Herb Lewis wrote: > Are we planning on getting this into 3.0.28a? 30% is a big hit I don't think that I will have the time to finish it tomorrow. And as 3.0.28a will be released on Friday latest according to Jerry, it won't make it. Sorry, Volker pgpDZ

Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)

2008-02-27 Thread Herb Lewis
Are we planning on getting this into 3.0.28a? 30% is a big hit Volker Lendecke wrote: 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

Re: [Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)

2008-02-27 Thread Volker Lendecke
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 > perf

[Samba] Re: Performance issues after samba update (utime?)

2008-02-27 Thread Alex Still
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Alex Still <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > We're experiencing performance issues after migrating from 3.0.8 to 3.0.28 > . > Write performance has degraded about 30%, regardless of the size of file > being copied. (tests described below are a single 150Mb