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

[Gunnar]

I think I finally found the problem, the test is still running so it's 
probably a bit too early but
it runs longer than all tests before.

The problem was that the open file limit was too low, after raising it 
with: ulimit -n 65536
(which is probably to high) I had no further crash.

Am 11.12.2012 15:20, schrieb Whit Blauvelt:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:10:32AM +0100, Gunnar wrote:
>
>> after testing for a while (after copying several 100000 files) it
>> seems that either glusterfs or glusternfs is crashing under load.
>> The the average load on the machine goes up to 8 or 9, before it was
>> max around 1, but there is no according process
> Is this uniquely with a Samba re-export of a Gluster NFS export? Or do you
> also see it with a Gluster NFS export alone?
I'm not sure about this. I think I didn't run the test long enough, but 
with NFS I had no problems
>
> If it's only with Samba, are Samba's logs showing anything? Many months
> back, with Gluster 3.1.5 NFS re-exported though Samba 3.0.28a, we hit a
> situation where Samba's logs were filling far too fast with an error (not
> precisely remembered) that led me to add "posix-locking = no" to the
> individual share configs in smb.conf and "unix extensions = no" to [global].
> I can't speak to the exact need for either - it was more a matter of
> googling other's responses to the error message and seeing those sometimes
> suggested in other contexts as cures. IIRC the Samba project itself had no
> useful documentation on these options or when they're useful.
I had applied the setting to the Samba conf before
>
> On the one hand, it's since been half a year without Samba running away like
> that again. On the other, the setup had been running for half a year before
> it did the first time. So this may be an anecdote with no diagnostic
> relevance.
>
> Whit