Whit,
I wonder in the Samba > Gluster client > Gluster server scenario
whether the
slowness is the Gluster client transacting with both servers rather than
just the local one.
I tested a reboot inbeween, so just one server stayed online and I
didn't see much changes in
the throughput. I tried to play around with the translators and I
could't get any significant increase
or decrease.
Samba on a local volume is much faster (I messed one test up and was so
happy about the transfer rates
and realized afterwards that samba used a local disc).
Gunnar
Am 05.12.2012 14:33, schrieb Whit Blauvelt:
Gunnar,
Second fastest is #1, nfs mount shared by Samba 4000 files in around 6 min
Slowest is #2 where I need more than 12 min for 4000 files.
Thanks for running that test. That's a significant difference.
I wonder in the Samba > Gluster client > Gluster server scenario whether the
slowness is the Gluster client transacting with both servers rather than
just the local one.
You've at least confirmed my suspicion that Samba > NFS > Gluster is not at
any speed disadvantage. And in many months of running that way, as I said,
there have been no performance complaints - although with this an
unsupported configuration it could turn out we've just been lucky and that
there's something yet that can go wrong.
Whit
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
