samba - Feb 2015 - Mac OS Mavericks über slow

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 04:23:21PM +0100, Roel van Meer
wrote:
> Ralph Böhme writes:
> 
> >I have a working PoC here: [3]. Opening a folder with 1000 files over
> >a slow link with 50 ms latency takes just a few seconds instead of 40
> >seconds with just vfs_streams_xattr or vfs_fruit alone.
> >
> >Samba 4.2 will ship a new VFS module that addresses this:
> >vfs_fruit. It stacks with vfs_streams_xattr but takes care of the
> >resource fork stream itself (on Linux: by saving it to a ._
> >AppleDouble file).
> 
> I can confirm that with Samba 4.2.0rc2, with vfs_streams_xattr
> and vfs_fruit the time it takes to list a shared dir
> with ~8000 files in it drops from 3m25s to 23s.
> Tested with OSX 10.9.5.
> 
> This is great, thanks a lot!
thanks for testing and sharing your findings! :)

And this is just the beginning, once we have my AAPL patches in Samba,
this should go down to a just few seconds.

-Ralph

-- 
SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen
http://www.sernet.de,mailto:kontakt@sernet.de
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba

Ralph B?hme writes:
> > >Samba 4.2 will ship a new VFS module that addresses this:
> > >vfs_fruit. It stacks with vfs_streams_xattr but takes care of the
> > >resource fork stream itself (on Linux: by saving it to a ._
> > >AppleDouble file).
> >
> > I can confirm that with Samba 4.2.0rc2, with vfs_streams_xattr
> > and vfs_fruit the time it takes to list a shared dir
> > with ~8000 files in it drops from 3m25s to 23s.
> > Tested with OSX 10.9.5.
>
> And this is just the beginning, once we have my AAPL patches in Samba,
> this should go down to a just few seconds.
A late followup question: since we work in a mixed Win/Mac environment: is  
there a performance penalty or change in behaviour expected for Windows  
clients if these two vfs modules are enabled? In other words; can I enable  
them without any adverse effects for the Windows clients?

Thanks a lot (really looking forward to this),

Roel