Hi David, i haven't tested samba but glusterfs fuse, i have posted the results few months ago, tests conducted using gluster 4.1.5:
*Options Reconfigured:* client.event-threads 3 performance.cache-size 8GB performance.io-thread-count 24 network.inode-lru-limit 1048576 performance.parallel-readdir on performance.cache-invalidation on performance.md-cache-timeout 600 features.cache-invalidation on features.cache-invalidation-timeout 600 performance.client-io-threads on nr of clients 6 Network 10Gb Clients Mem 128GB Clients Cores 22 Centos 7.5.1804 Kernel 3.10.0-862.14.4.el7.x86_64 nr of servers/bricks per volume 3 Network 100Gb *node to node is 100Gb, cleints 10Gb Server Mem 377GB Server Cores 56 *Intel 5120 CPU Storage 4x8TB NVME Centos 7.5.1804 Kernel 3.10.0-862.14.4.el7.x86_64 This for example are FOPS with 128K IO size (cnsidered sweet spot for glusterfs according to documentation). In Blue 8threads per client and red 4threads for client [image: image.png] Below 4K [image: image.png] and 1MB [image: image.png] On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:09 AM David Spisla <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Amar, > 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. > 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? > > Regards > David Spisla > > Am Di., 22. Jan. 2019 um 07:14 Uhr schrieb Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan < > [email protected]>: > >> For Samba usecase, please make sure you have nl-cache (ie, >> 'negative-lookup cache') enabled. We have seen some improvements from this >> value. >> >> -Amar >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:23 PM David Spisla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Gluster Community, >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> The measurements are as follows. In each test case 400 files were >>> written: >>> >>> 64KiB_x_400 files 1MiB_x_400 files >>> 10MiB_x_400 files >>> 1 Thread 0,77 MiB/s 8,05 >>> MiB/s 72,67 MiB/s >>> 4 Threads 0,86 MiB/s 8,92 MiB/s >>> 90,38 MiB/s >>> 8 Threads 0,87 MiB/s 8,92 >>> MiB/s 94,75 MiB/s >>> >>> Does anyone have measurements that are in a similar range or are >>> significantly different? >>> We do not know which values can still be considered "normal" and which are >>> not. >>> We also know that there are options to improve performance. But first of >>> all we are interested >>> in whether there are reference values. >>> Regards >>> David Spisla >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >> >> >> >> -- >> Amar Tumballi (amarts) >> > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users -- Davide Obbi Senior System Administrator Booking.com B.V. Vijzelstraat 66-80 Amsterdam 1017HL Netherlands Direct +31207031558 [image: Booking.com] <https://www.booking.com/> Empowering people to experience the world since 1996 43 languages, 214+ offices worldwide, 141,000+ global destinations, 29 million reported listings Subsidiary of Booking Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: BKNG)
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
