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 ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |