Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:15:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:14:54 -0500 Received: from HSE-Montreal-ppp103309.qc.sympatico.ca ([64.230.176.130]:52743 "EHLO mx1.lcis.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:14:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:14:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Gord R. Lamb" X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Samba performance / zero-copy network I/O Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi everyone, I'm trying to optimize a box for samba file serving (just contiguous block I/O for the moment), and I've now got both CPUs maxxed out with system load. (For background info, the system is a 2x933 Intel, 1gb system memory, 133mhz FSB, 1gbit 64bit/66mhz FC card, 2x 1gbit 64/66 etherexpress boards in etherchannel bond, running linux-2.4.1+smptimers+zero-copy+lowlatency) CPU states typically look something like this: CPU states: 3.6% user, 94.5% system, 0.0% nice, 1.9% idle .. with the 3 smbd processes each drawing around 50-75% (according to top). When reading the profiler results, the largest consuming kernel (calls?) are file_read_actor and csum_partial_copy_generic, by a longshot (about 70% and 20% respectively). Presumably, the csum_partial_copy_generic should be eliminated (or at least reduced) by David Miller's zerocopy patch, right? Or am I misunderstanding this completely? :) Regards, - Gord R. Lamb (glamb@lcis.dyndns.org) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/