On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:18 +, Gary Lloyd wrote:
> Was just reading the small file section of the 3.9 release notes:
>
> http://blog.gluster.org/2016/11/announcing-gluster-3-9/
>
> Setting these options does seem to increase transfer speeds on small files by
> quite alot:
> # gluster volum
Was just reading the small file section of the 3.9 release notes:
http://blog.gluster.org/2016/11/announcing-gluster-3-9/
Setting these options does seem to increase transfer speeds on small files
by quite alot:
# gluster volume set features.cache-invalidation on
# gluster volume set featu
For _every_ file copied samba performs readdir() to get all entries of the
destination folder. Then the list is searched for filename (to prevent name
collisions as SMB shares are not case sensitive). More files in folder, more
time it takes to perform readdir(). It is a lot worse for Gluster be
Thanks for the reply
I've just done a bit more testing. If I use rsync from a gluster client to
copy the same files to the mount point it only takes a couple of minutes.
For some reason it's very slow on samba though (version 4.4.4).
I have tried various samba tweaks / settings and have yet to ge
Hi,
There is a number of tweaks/hacks to make it better, but IMHO overall
performance with small files is still unacceptable for such folders with
thousands of entries.
If your shares are not too large to be placed on single filesystem and you
still want to use Gluster - it is possible to run
Hi
I am currently testing gluster 3.9 replicated/distrbuted on centos 7.3 with
samba/ctdb.
I have been able to get it all up and running, but writing small files is
really slow.
If I copy large files from gluster backed samba I get almost wire speed (We
only have 1Gb at the moment). I get around
