<div dir="ltr"><div>Hello Amar,</div><div>thank you for the advice. We already use nl-cache option and a bunch of other settings. At the moment we try the samba-vfs-glusterfs plugin to access a gluster volume via samba. The performance increase now. <br></div><div>Additionally we are looking for some performance measurements to compare with. Maybe someone in the community also does performance tests. Does Redhat has some official reference measurement?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>David Spisla<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Di., 22. Jan. 2019 um 07:14 Uhr schrieb Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan <<a href="mailto:atumball@redhat.com">atumball@redhat.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">For Samba usecase, please make sure you have nl-cache (ie, 'negative-lookup cache') enabled. We have seen some improvements from this value.<div><br></div><div>-Amar</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-5162899884277905295gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:23 PM David Spisla <<a href="mailto:spisla80@gmail.com" target="_blank">spisla80@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Gluster Community,</div><div><br></div><div>it is a known fact that Samba+Gluster has a bad smallfile performance. We now have some test measurements created by this setup: 2-Node-Cluster on real hardware with Replica-2 Volume (just one subvolume), Gluster v.4.1.6, Samba v4.7. Samba writes to Gluster via FUSE. Files created by fio. We used a Windows System as Client which is in the same network like the servers.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The measurements are as follows. In each test case 400 files were written:</div><div><br></div><div> 64KiB_x_400 files 1MiB_x_400 files 10MiB_x_400 files<br></div><div>1 Thread 0,77 MiB/s 8,05 MiB/s 72,67 MiB/s<br></div><div>4 Threads 0,86 MiB/s 8,92 MiB/s 90,38 MiB/s <br></div><div>8 Threads 0,87 MiB/s 8,92 MiB/s 94,75 MiB/s</div><div><br></div><div>
<pre class="gmail-m_-5162899884277905295gmail-m_-6519672765833847115gmail-tw-data-text gmail-m_-5162899884277905295gmail-m_-6519672765833847115gmail-tw-ta gmail-m_-5162899884277905295gmail-m_-6519672765833847115gmail-tw-text-small" id="gmail-m_-5162899884277905295gmail-m_-6519672765833847115gmail-tw-target-text" style="text-align:left;height:216px" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="en">Does anyone have measurements that are in a similar range or are significantly different?<br>We do not know which values can still be considered "normal" and which are not. <br>We also know that there are options to improve performance. But first of all we are interested <br>in whether there are reference values.<br>
<span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="en">Regards<br>David Spisla</span></span></span></span></pre></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gluster-users@gluster.org" target="_blank">Gluster-users@gluster.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users</a></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-5162899884277905295gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Amar Tumballi (amarts)<br></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>