Hi,
recently I noticed, that we have some performance issues regarding our central samba fileserver. Red Hat EL 5.8, samba3x-3.5.10-0.109.
Doing a rsync, scp or accessing a share from a client and copy large files (e.g. 3 GB ISO), I do get a read / write average about 60 to 90 MB/sec. So LAN and general hardware can work at max. lan speed.
But copying or syncing small files, e.g. user profiles etc. or doing a backup of the smaller files lets drop the average performance to 10 MB/Sec or less :(
We use ext3 (noatime), the storage is connected by iscsi, it is a sun storage with sas harddisk.
All suggestions so far: migrate to ext4 and good luck :)
I read a couple of filesystem comparisons and ext4 looks like the best option, but what else could I do or expect?
Locking? Limits ... blocksizes, more RAM (4GB installed), we have about 600GB of user data. so not really much...
Thanks for any suggestion or hint . Regards . Götz
On 09/04/2012 09:06 AM, Götz Reinicke wrote:
Hi,
recently I noticed, that we have some performance issues regarding our central samba fileserver. Red Hat EL 5.8, samba3x-3.5.10-0.109.
Doing a rsync, scp or accessing a share from a client and copy large files (e.g. 3 GB ISO), I do get a read / write average about 60 to 90 MB/sec. So LAN and general hardware can work at max. lan speed.
But copying or syncing small files, e.g. user profiles etc. or doing a backup of the smaller files lets drop the average performance to 10 MB/Sec or less :(
We use ext3 (noatime), the storage is connected by iscsi, it is a sun storage with sas harddisk.
All suggestions so far: migrate to ext4 and good luck :)
I read a couple of filesystem comparisons and ext4 looks like the best option, but what else could I do or expect?
Locking? Limits ... blocksizes, more RAM (4GB installed), we have about 600GB of user data. so not really much...
Thanks for any suggestion or hint . Regards . Götz
I recognize this. Also using 5.8. Simply removing a few hundred GB of small files can take half an hour. Removing the same amount of data consumed by a couple of big files is less than a minute (even that is slow, why not remove the index somewhere in the file system?) One thing that did speed up things was using a solid stated disk because of the much lower random access time. That's most likely not an option for you...
So I am also interested in any answer.