Re: Adding readdir entries to the name cache ...
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: [major snippage, much useful to think about here ...] However, ls seems to call lstat in the same order that the files are in the directory, and a normal clock approach to directories would yield exactly the same result. Further, in the cases that the user did not want a -l, we would avoid adding many potentially useless names to the name cache and reducing its performance. This is because the sort occurs first. An unsorted ls (which is available -- see the man page) doesn't have this issue. I don't want to start a flame war, but a truss of ls -l shows the following: getdirentries(0x5,0x809d000,0x1000,0x80990b4)= 4096 (0x1000) lstat(.gnome,0x809c248)= 0 (0x0) lstat(.mc,0x809c348) = 0 (0x0) lstat(.xinitrc,0x809c44c) = 0 (0x0) lstat(750B.pdf,0x809c54c) = 0 (0x0) lstat(Mail,0x809c648) = 0 (0x0) lstat(nsmail,0x809c748)= 0 (0x0) lstat(.cshrc,0x809c848)= 0 (0x0) lstat(.ssh,0x809c948) = 0 (0x0) lstat(.gnome_private,0x809ca50)= 0 (0x0) lstat(.xchat,0x809cb48)= 0 (0x0) lstat(.exmh,0x809cc48) = 0 (0x0) lstat(.ICEauthority,0x809cd50) = 0 (0x0) lstat(.netrc,0x809ce48)= 0 (0x0) This is the same order that 'ls -fal' produced. This suggests that the ls is doing an unsorted lookup of the info, and then sorting. That is the way I would have done it as well. Regards - Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Adding readdir entries to the name cache ...
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: Richard Sharpe wrote: Note that you can get another 8-12% by making negative cache entries, since DOS/Windows clients tend to search the full path each time, even though they have already received a successful response in the past (i.e. there is no client caching for this information, because there is no distributed coherency protocol that would permit server invalidation of the cache). Unmodified, SVR4 DNLC can not support negative cache entries (there need to be two line changes). Hmmm, I think that the major part of the problem there was that, for what ever reason, Barry Feigenbaum of IBM, declined to add a Change Working Directory or Set Working Diretory command to the SMB protocol. Thus, at least for the SMB protocol, and maybe generally, Windows clients must always send the full pathname for every file they want, unless it happens to be at the root of the share. Perhaps I am wrong about that. Regards - Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Adding readdir entries to the name cache ...
At 6:29 AM +0930 7/6/02, Richard Sharpe wrote: Hmmm, I think that the major part of the problem there was that, for what ever reason, Barry Feigenbaum of IBM, declined to add a Change Working Directory or Set Working Diretory command to the SMB protocol. Thus, at least for the SMB protocol, and maybe generally, Windows clients must always send the full pathname for every file they want, unless it happens to be at the root of the share. Could the unix process for samba fake that? Keep track of the most recently used directory, and when a new request comes in split it into directory plus filename, and if the directory is the same as the previous one, then just access the filename. If the directory is different, try to do a chdir() to the new directory, and if that succeeds then save that as the previous directory. Or is that more trouble than it's worth? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Adding readdir entries to the name cache ...
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Garance A Drosihn wrote: At 6:29 AM +0930 7/6/02, Richard Sharpe wrote: Hmmm, I think that the major part of the problem there was that, for what ever reason, Barry Feigenbaum of IBM, declined to add a Change Working Directory or Set Working Diretory command to the SMB protocol. Thus, at least for the SMB protocol, and maybe generally, Windows clients must always send the full pathname for every file they want, unless it happens to be at the root of the share. Could the unix process for samba fake that? Keep track of the most recently used directory, and when a new request comes in split it into directory plus filename, and if the directory is the same as the previous one, then just access the filename. If the directory is different, try to do a chdir() to the new directory, and if that succeeds then save that as the previous directory. Yes it can do that, and should do that. I will have to check what Samba does. I know I proposed adding a path cache to smbclient/smbtar so that it could avoid repeatedly, and even a cache of one path could make a big difference. Or is that more trouble than it's worth? No, I think it is worth a lot. I suspect Samba already does that. There is just so much code to look at. Regards - Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: Adding readdir entries to the name cache ...
Richard Sharpe wrote: On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: [major snippage, much useful to think about here ...] However, ls seems to call lstat in the same order that the files are in the directory, and a normal clock approach to directories would yield exactly the same result. Further, in the cases that the user did not want a -l, we would avoid adding many potentially useless names to the name cache and reducing its performance. This is because the sort occurs first. An unsorted ls (which is available -- see the man page) doesn't have this issue. I don't want to start a flame war, but a truss of ls -l shows the following: [ ... ] This suggests that the ls is doing an unsorted lookup of the info, and then sorting. That is the way I would have done it as well. My bad; I had assumed that what he said he was observing was actually what he was observing. It may be that he's installed an ls replacement or something, or it could just be an artifact of the directory he's looking in. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
