Meanwhile it appears to contradict. Is there any reason not to update the vfs doc to reflect the old situation pre-bugfix and the current suggested values? On 8 March 2018 9:28:30 pm Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:00:48PM +0000, Stilez via samba wrote: >> In the vfs pages for aio_pthread, it gives as an example for aio read/write >> size, 1024 for each and states an "appropriate" value must be set. >> >> Byt in smb.conf it states that the only reasonable values are 0 or 1 (also >> that there's a default = 1 so no value need be given explicitly). >> >> Which of these is correct? > > Both :-). Back before we fixed the bug where MacOS-X violates > the SMB2 spec by chaining a open/write/close without expecting > the write to go async then setting 1024 was the "correct" thing > to do to allow Mac's to write their version of SMB2 symlinks. > > Now we've fixed that bug, and it's safe to always do async > reads/writes, then setting them to 0 (always off) and 1 (always on) > is really the only two settings you need.
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:13:20PM +0000, Stilez wrote:> Meanwhile it appears to contradict. Is there any reason not to update the > vfs doc to reflect the old situation pre-bugfix and the current suggested > values?No, feel free to submit a docs patch. Thanks !
Will do. Quick supplementary question, there are parameters "aio max threads" (general conf) and "aio_pthread: aio num threads" (vfs conf). Are they synonymous or should the user set either/both? On 8 March 2018 11:14:39 pm Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:13:20PM +0000, Stilez wrote: >> Meanwhile it appears to contradict. Is there any reason not to update the >> vfs doc to reflect the old situation pre-bugfix and the current suggested >> values? > > No, feel free to submit a docs patch. Thanks !
Updated on github. Hopefully PRs there are mirrored onto the main git repo and it's not just a one way mirroring (I haven't figured out CLI gut yet so it's way easier that way!). I also put a couple of others in earlier, again on github. On 8 March 2018 11:14:39 pm Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:13:20PM +0000, Stilez wrote: >> Meanwhile it appears to contradict. Is there any reason not to update the >> vfs doc to reflect the old situation pre-bugfix and the current suggested >> values? > > No, feel free to submit a docs patch. Thanks !