<html>
<body>
<div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif;">
<table bgcolor="#f9f3c9" width="100%" cellpadding="8" style="border: 1px #c9c399 solid;">
<tr>
<td>
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
<a href="http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112982/">http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112982/</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
<blockquote style="margin-left: 1em; border-left: 2px solid #d0d0d0; padding-left: 10px;">
<p style="margin-top: 0;">On October 5th, 2013, 4:01 p.m. UTC, <b>Mark Gaiser</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 1em; border-left: 2px solid #d0d0d0; padding-left: 10px;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>On October 5th, 2013, 4:48 p.m. UTC, <b>Dawit Alemayehu</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 1em; border-left: 2px solid #d0d0d0; padding-left: 10px;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>On October 5th, 2013, 5 p.m. UTC, <b>Mark Gaiser</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 1em; border-left: 2px solid #d0d0d0; padding-left: 10px;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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 :)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>On October 5th, 2013, 5:01 p.m. UTC, <b>Dawit Alemayehu</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 1em; border-left: 2px solid #d0d0d0; padding-left: 10px;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>On October 5th, 2013, 5:10 p.m. UTC, <b>Mark Gaiser</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 1em; border-left: 2px solid #d0d0d0; padding-left: 10px;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>On October 5th, 2013, 8:06 p.m. UTC, <b>Dawit Alemayehu</b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-left: 1em; border-left: 2px solid #d0d0d0; padding-left: 10px;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">I will try that tomorrow.
Also, i don't think it should make a difference if i copy from windows or from a samba share. I just did test a copy using Windows 7 as the destination and the same samba share as source. Even that gives me slower speed then mount.cifs although just slightly. Using Windows 7 gives me ~80MB/s. Before i add confusion, this has nothing to do with your patch, just comparing copy speeds on my pc but with different distributions.</pre>
<br />
<p>- Mark</p>
<br />
<p>On October 5th, 2013, 3:07 p.m. UTC, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:</p>
<table bgcolor="#fefadf" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8" style="background-image: url('http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/static/rb/images/review_request_box_top_bg.ab6f3b1072c9.png'); background-position: left top; background-repeat: repeat-x; border: 1px black solid;">
<tr>
<td>
<div>Review request for KDE Runtime.</div>
<div>By Dawit Alemayehu.</div>
<p style="color: grey;"><i>Updated Oct. 5, 2013, 3:07 p.m.</i></p>
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em;">
<b style="color: #575012; font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 1.5em;">Bugs: </b>
<a href="http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176271">176271</a>,
<a href="http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=291835">291835</a>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 1.5em;">
<b style="color: #575012; font-size: 10pt;">Repository: </b>
kde-runtime
</div>
<h1 style="color: #575012; font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 1.5em;">Description </h1>
<table width="100%" bgcolor="#ffffff" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" style="border: 1px solid #b8b5a0">
<tr>
<td>
<pre style="margin: 0; padding: 0; white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; white-space: -pre-wrap; white-space: -o-pre-wrap; word-wrap: break-word;">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.</pre>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h1 style="color: #575012; font-size: 10pt; margin-top: 1.5em;">Diffs</b> </h1>
<ul style="margin-left: 3em; padding-left: 0;">
<li>kioslave/smb/kio_smb.h <span style="color: grey">(55efb44)</span></li>
<li>kioslave/smb/kio_smb_dir.cpp <span style="color: grey">(5573266)</span></li>
<li>kioslave/smb/smb.protocol <span style="color: grey">(654bcfb)</span></li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/112982/diff/" style="margin-left: 3em;">View Diff</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>