> On Oct. 5, 2013, 4:01 p.m., Mark Gaiser wrote: > > Tested it. > > PRE patch: ~17MB/s > > POST patch: ~27MB/s > > > > So in functionality terms this patch makes a file copy from a windows share > > (note: a linux machine sharing through samba, not an actual windows > > machine) much faster. However, mounting the same share through CIFS > > (mount.cifs) gives mu much greater speed with ~86MB/s. Is there anything > > you can do to make this about equal in speed compared to cifs? > > Dawit Alemayehu wrote: > Can you provide the mount options you used? We use libsmbclient for so > there should not be such a large difference. I will have to check if there > are known performance issues with libsmbclient itself. > > Mark Gaiser wrote: > Hi Dawit, > > I did't provide any mount options besides my username. The actual line: > mount.cifs //<ip> data -o username=mark > > Yes, that's all :) > > Dawit Alemayehu wrote: > I found this gnome vfs change: > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/commits-list/2009-August/msg06304.html. It > also checked to see if that code remains the same today and it seems like it > does. See > http://code.ohloh.net/file?fid=ZGtFwvN9JyhO9xIWTTQS-H6jau8&cid=Wya2WEWTTh4&s=gvfsbackendsmb.c&pp=0&ff=1&filterChecked=true&fp=309479&mp=1&ml=1&me=1&md=1&projSelected=true#L0 > > Do you get comparable speed if you change MAX_XFER_BUF_SIZE definition in > kio_smb.h to 65534? > > Mark Gaiser wrote: > Well, your patch changed it to "65536". I doubt decreasing it to "65534" > will magically make it equally fast as mount.cifs. My "POST patch" result is > with MAX_XFER_BUF_SIZE set to 65536. One thing i do notice in searching for > CIFS is that it's advertised as the SMB successor. Perhaps it's just better > and faster?
No. It is the same thing. CIFS is just a new name for the same old SMB protocol in its modern incarnation. If you are testing it against a Windows share and not a Samba share, then that might make a difference. You can also try to double the buffer to 128 KB and see if that makes any difference. - Dawit ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112982/#review41277 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 5, 2013, 3:07 p.m., Dawit Alemayehu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112982/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 5, 2013, 3:07 p.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Runtime. > > > Bugs: 176271 and 291835 > http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176271 > http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=291835 > > > Repository: kde-runtime > > > Description > ------- > > The attach patch adds support for the following to kio_smb: > > - copyToFile optimization so downloading files from window shares is faster. > - partial download resumption as part of the copyToFile implementation. > - preservation of modified file timstamp. Again as part of the copyToFile > implementation. > > Note that in this patch the latter two features only apply to "smb" -> "file" > downloads. The second part of this patch will that will follow soon will add > support for the other half, the "copyFromFile" optimization. > > > Diffs > ----- > > kioslave/smb/kio_smb.h 55efb44 > kioslave/smb/kio_smb_dir.cpp 5573266 > kioslave/smb/smb.protocol 654bcfb > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112982/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Dawit Alemayehu > >