On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 07:44:58PM +0200, Mimiko wrote: > iperf -c ip > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Client connecting to ip, TCP port 5001 > TCP window size: 23.5 KByte (default) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > [ 3] local ip port 36389 connected with ip port 5001 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth > [ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 835 MBytes 700 Mbits/sec > > 70% of 1Gbit. Is this seems a problem with samba?
Do you have jumbo packet support on your switch and on all possible clients? 5000 - 9000 byte ethernet packets can improve raw throughput, at a (usually minor) cost in latency. > dd if=/dev/zero of=test.bin bs=1M count=10000 > 10000+0 records in > 10000+0 records out > 10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 24.5841 s, 427 MB/s Looks normal. > dd if=test.bin of=/dev/null bs=1M > 10000+0 records in > 10000+0 records out > 10485760000 bytes (10 GB) copied, 2.24662 s, 4.7 GB/s Pulled from cache. > Disk is a zfs raid: > zpool create -f -m none -o ashift=12 zfspool raidz2 .... (total 8 x > 1TB + 8 x 2TB disk in SATA2 supermicro backplane) > zfs set atime=off zfspool > zfs set dedup=off zfspool > zfs create -V 4T zfspool/backup > zfs set compression=lz4 zfspool/backup > mkfs.ext4 -b 4096 -q /dev/zvol/zfspool/backup > > Is this samba problem or zfs problem? RAIDZ2 is not a high-speed solution, it's a medium-safety solution. Layering ext4 on top of ZFS blocks doesn't make it faster, it just extends the reliability of ZFS to the ext4 fs. Do you have a requirement for putting ext4 on top of ZFS blocks? Can you use ZFS instead? -dsr-
