RE: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning oftdb_free: left read failed at ...?

2003-02-06 Thread Gerald Drouillard
If you are referring to: lock spin count = lock spin time = They are working very well 2.2.7a thank you. Here are my settings: lock spin count = 50 ;default=10 ;test with 6 wks show anything higher or lower than 15 cause increased load on server with slower performance lock spin time = 15

Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning oftdb_free: left read failed at ...?

2003-02-05 Thread Volker Lendecke
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: I guess I should have defined CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK when compiling my kernel since I also configured Samba with --with-spinlocks: Ok, this might explain it. Spinlocks are definitely a less tested part of the code. I have

Re: Samba and spinlocks on Linux (was Re: REPOST: Meaning oftdb_free: left read failed at ...?

2003-02-05 Thread Ralf G. R. Bergs
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:50:50 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote: [...] you do not have a *very* good reason to enable them, could you please retry without spinlocks? Ok, I'm just recompiling Samba without spinlock support. Obviously I have to wait until this night so that the fileserver becomes less