linux-kernel - Re: Big performance improvements seen with cifs async write patches even over localhost

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTikCUy-R16_QhuwNtynP9mXd9zFDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2011 12:09:30 -0500
From:	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To:	Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
Cc:	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Big performance improvements seen with cifs async write patches
 even over localhost

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:14:19AM -0500, Steve French wrote:
>> Did some informal testing of Jeff Layton's cifs async_write patch set
>> tonight (recent kernel). Copying 700MB sequentially was 20% faster
>> from cifs kernel client to Samba 3.6 with his patches - even mounted
>> over localhost (where network latency is a much smaller issue) and
>> with a slow laptop drive!
>>
>> I was simply doing
>>
>> time dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/null bs=1M count=700
>>
>> repeated 4 times each way (with old module, and with same code with
>> Jeff's cifs async write code builtin), deleting the target file in
>> between each run.
>>
>> I am looking forward to trying this over GigE tomorrow to servers with
>> faster disks.

Note that Samba defaults to negotiating a 128K write size but sending
"min receivefile size" in smb.conf to a larger value will allow larger
writes.   I see slightly better performance on the simple dd test over
localhost network interface with larger wsize of 512K than I do with
the default (128K).   I haven't measured the ideal wsize yet but
presumably it will vary depending on network and disk speed and server
load.

> Very nice ! Now where's my encrypted transport Steve ? :-) :-)

First cleanup patch is in (which gracefully handles failing mounts
when server requires encryption and client can't do it).    The 2nd
part - the NTLMSSP negotiation inside setfsunixinfo wasn't too bad and
I plan to send out for review within a few days.  I haven't written
the piece which uses these credentials to do the encryption yet.

-- 
Thanks,

Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/