[Gluster-users] CIFS options - anyone done A-B comparisons on various setups?

[Whit Blauvelt]

Gunnar,

I claim nothing special in terms of Samba knowledge. Not even that this is
optimal in any dimension. All I can say is that none of my users have
complained about performance, in a situation where speed's not critical as
long as the overall system is dependable. But my current Samba conf, for a
CIFS share run from a third system exporting an NFS share via CIFS that
originates on Glusterfs (3.1.5) is:

[global]
        workgroup = xyz
        netbios name = abc
        interfaces = eth1 192.168.1.250/24
        encrypt passwords = true          
        wins server = 192.168.1.9
        create mask = 0666       
        force create mode = 0666
        directory mask = 0777   
        force directory mode = 0777
        hosts allow = 192.168.1. 
        load printers = no                           
        printing = none   
        printcap name = /dev/null
        disable spoolss = yes    
        unix extensions = no 

[sharename]
        path = /path/to/nfsmountof/glusterfs
        valid users = qwert yuiop
        writeable = Yes
        posix-locking = No

I recall having strong reasons to turn off unix extensions and
posix-locking, in terms of hitting errors otherwise. I should have kept
notes though, as that was long enough ago I don't remember the specifics.

What are you using as a Windows NFS client? I had the impression Windows
didn't have a good option there. 

Whit


On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:06:45PM +0100, Gunnar wrote:
> Hi Whit,
> 
> could you post your smb.conf? I'm currently a bit lost with a performance
> optimized setting for millions of small files accessed via a Samba share
> (local Gluster fuse mount). I would be glad to try out your approach and
> see how the results will be since a NFS access from Windows gives me a
> much better throughput than the Samba share.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gunnar