Am Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 schrieb Volker Lendecke:> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 02:26:25PM -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> > >From your description, it seems that there is a lot going on.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't personally know nearly enough about the
OS/2
> > implementation of SMB. I know that there is a good deal of
documentation,
> > and from the captures you have provided it is clear that OS/2 supports
many
> > features that other implementations do not. Since I don't have
experience
> > with the OS/2 implementation, I don't have a clear idea of how
some of those
> > features work.
>
> Steve F., are you listening? And, do you remember those
> details? :-)
>
> Volker
>
Volker,
i remember our irc talk:
http://samba.sernet.de/irclog/2007/08/20070826-Sun.log
08/26/07 14:46:20 <vl> hi kukks
08/26/07 14:46:58 <vl> kukks: With all the changes I've done to
InBuffer/OutBuffer in Samba 3.2, I would be grateful if you could give it a test
run with OS/2.
08/26/07 14:49:52 <kukks> vl: Hi Volker. Well, I'll test that during
the next days. Will give you feedback about the results.
08/26/07 14:50:49 <vl> great!
08/26/07 14:58:47 <kukks> vl: btw - have you removed 'read bmpx'?
The last time i tested that (about a year ago), it gave a speed improvement of
about 10%. Checked that when copying a large directory tree.
08/26/07 14:59:44 <vl> kukks: Yes, removed it.
08/26/07 14:59:59 <vl> If you can get me a good trace of it, I might
re-add it again.
08/26/07 15:00:27 <vl> We don't have a test suite for it and I
can't run OS/2, so I did not have anything I could test this quite tricky
code against.
08/26/07 15:01:35 <kukks> vl: I'll have a look at that ...
08/26/07 15:02:07 <vl> I know this might hurt OS/2, but 10% speed penalty
while it still works correctly, I'd be willing to pay that.
08/26/07 15:04:20 <kukks> vl: yep, it's no pity, if it's not
implemented. :-)
08/26/07 15:05:57 <kukks> bbl
My seen 10% speed up with enabled read bmpx was done on a 10MBit network.
I always used "read bmpx" that days...
Cheers, G?nter