Hide Forgot
The patchset to add asynchronous write support for cifs was just merged into Steve F.'s tree and should be going into mainline soon. It speeds up writes fairly significantly and is something we will probably want to backport for 6.2 or 6.3.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
Basically the best way to test this is to do a lot of buffered I/O and measure the performance. A simple way: $ dd if=/dev/zero of=/file/on/cifs/share bs=1M count=XXXXX conv=fsync ...or something like that. It should be faster with this patchset in place, but it's hard to know how much faster as that's dependent on many different factors. While you're at it, you can also try mounting with different wsize= options and verifying that they work as expected.
Patch(es) available on kernel-2.6.32-168.el6
patchs are checked and regression test are done. [root@dell-pet610-01 lease]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test/test bs=1M count=10K conv=fsync 10240+0 records in 10240+0 records out 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 165.412 s, 64.9 MB/s [root@dell-pet610-01 lease]# uname -a Linux dell-pet610-01.lab.bos.redhat.com 2.6.32-209.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Oct 12 03:54:10 EDT 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@dell-pet610-01 lease]# mount | grep cifs //dell-pe860-01.rhts.eng.bos.redhat.com/test on /mnt/test type cifs (rw) [root@dell-pet610-01 ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test/test2 bs=1M count=10K conv=fsync 10240+0 records in 10240+0 records out 10737418240 bytes (11 GB) copied, 188.81 s, 56.9 MB/s [root@dell-pet610-01 ~]# uname -a Linux dell-pet610-01.lab.bos.redhat.com 2.6.32-167.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Jul 8 11:24:13 EDT 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-1530.html