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
