Here's a thought - If ACLs/journalling aren't needed, how well does Samba work on FAT/VFAT partitions? Could the sheer simplicity of the filesystem help there?
Thanks, Mark Lidstone IT and Network Support Administrator BMT SeaTech Ltd Grove House, Meridians Cross, 7 Ocean Way Ocean Village, Southampton. SO14 3TJ. UK Tel: +44 (0)23 8063 5122 Fax: +44 (0)23 8063 5144 E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: www.bmtseatech.co.uk ======================================================================== == Confidentiality Notice and Disclaimer: The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended only for the use of the e-mail addressee(s) shown. If you are not that person, or one of those persons, you are not allowed to take any action based upon it or to copy it, forward, distribute or disclose the contents of it and you should please delete it from your system. BMT SeaTech Limited does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the context of this e-mail or its attachments which arise as a result of Internet transmission, nor accept liability for statements which are those of the author and not clearly made on behalf of BMT SeaTech Limited. ======================================================================== == -----Original Message----- From: Malcolm Baldridge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 July 2004 10:43 To: samba Subject: Re: Re: [Samba] Windows 2K outperform Linux/Samba very much? Jacky Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I trid 20,000 files in a directory too, and found the same result: > Windows's share is about 10 times faster than Linux/samba's one when > get small file's property(NOT content). Jacky, Not all Linux filesystems are created equally, especially for this kind of file access method. Ext2/Ext3 is probably the slowest filesytem for this kind of thing. I have seen some glimpses of directory hashing being retrofitted into ext2/ext3, but this requires a format-time option with very new tools, with new mount/kernels, etc. You'd be MUCH better off with reiserfs. I've had 500,000 files in a single directory without a significant decrease in performance. I've never managed to get Windows 2000 to manage this without really tanking in performance [I've given up the test harness long before it got that far]. I don't think you'll ever see samba outperforming Windows in this though, because of the case-insensitivity issue, though it should at least match the performance. Reiserfs may provide other benefits (superior access locality) which MIGHT boost performance a bit towards Linux/Samba, but I'd not hold my breath. =MB= -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
