Hi Jake,
On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:17:16 +0100, Jake Grimmett wrote:
> Hi Daniel, David,
>
> Many thanks for both of your advice.
>
> Sorry not to reply to the list, but I'm subscribed to the digest and my
> mail client will not reply to individual threads - I've switched back to
> regular.
No worries, cc'ing the list in this response.
> As to this issue, I've turned off posix locking, which has improved
> write speeds - here are the old benchmarks plus new figures.
>
> i.e. Using Helios LanTest 6.0.0 on Osx.
>
> Create 300 Files
> Cephfs (kernel) > samba (no Posix locks)
> average 3600 ms
> Cephfs (kernel) > samba. average 5100 ms
> Isilon > CIFS average 2600 ms
> ZFS > samba average 121 ms
>
> Remove 300 files
> Cephfs (kernel) > samba (no Posix locks)
> average 2200 ms
> Cephfs (kernel) > samba. average 2100 ms
> Isilon > CIFS average 900 ms
> ZFS > samba average 421 ms
>
> Write 300MB to file
> Cephfs (kernel) > samba (no Posix locks)
> average 53 MB/s
> Cephfs (kernel) > samba. average 25 MB/s
> Isilon > CIFS average 17.9 MB/s
> ZFS > samba average 64.4 MB/s
>
>
> Settings as follows:
> [global]
> (snip)
> smb2 leases = yes
>
>
> [ceph_test]
> path = /ceph-kernel
> guest ok = no
> delete readonly = yes
> oplocks = yes
> posix locking = no
Which version of Samba are you using here? If it's relatively recent
(4.6+), please rerun with asynchronous I/O enabled via:
[share]
aio read size = 1
aio write size = 1
...these settings are the default with Samba 4.8+. AIO won't help the
file creation / deletion benchmarks, but there should be a positive
affect on read/write performance.
> Disabling all locking (locking = no) gives some further speed improvements.
>
> File locking hopefully will not be an issue...
>
> We are not exporting this share via NFS. The shares will only be used by
> single clients (Windows or OSX Desktops) as a backup location.
>
> Specifically, each machine has a separate smb mounted folder, to which
> they either use ChronoSync or Max SyncUp to write to.
>
> One other point...
> Will CTDB work with "posix locking = no"?
> It would be great if CTDB works, as I'd like to have a several SMB heads
> to load-balance the clients....
Yes, it shouldn't affect CTDB. Clustered FS POSIX locks are used by CTDB
for split-brain avoidance, and are separate to Samba's
client-lock <-> POSIX-lock mapping.
(https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Configuring_the_CTDB_recovery_lock)
FYI, CTDB is now also capable of using RADOS objects for the recovery
lock:
https://ctdb.samba.org/manpages/ctdb_mutex_ceph_rados_helper.7.html
Cheers, David
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
