[Samba] suggestions for a "fast" fileserver - 1G / 10G
Chan Min Wai
dcmwai at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 10:04:26 MDT 2014
About RAID 5/6
I read some suggestion that we should use Raid 1+0 than raid 5/6 because of
the read and write speed...
What do you think about that part?
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:45:38AM +0100, Emmanuel Florac wrote:
> > Le Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:37:15 +0100 vous écriviez:
> > > I'm looking for some recommendations for a "fast" fileserver regarding
> > > the hardware you use.
> > >
> > What is your disk subsystem like? What filesystem, with which mount
> > options? Any server I've setup in the past 3 years routinely achieve
> > 110 MB/s with samba on GigE, 600 to 800 MB/s using 10 GigE.
> > The very very most important option is :
> > 1° don't ever use CFQ on a file server. Use noop or eventually
> > deadline.
> > CFQ absolutely sucks wind on servers. CFQ is only good for workstation
> > use of rotating disks (it absolutely sucks with SSDs, too). On servers
> > with a hardware RAID controller, use noop. Using md raid, noop or
> > deadline may be better depending upon your workflow.
> > 2° Then comes the hardware: your disk subsystem should be about twice as
> > fast as you want your network to be. To achieve smooth, 100 MB/s
> > throughput, aim for 200 MB/s disk speed. Any pair of modern drives
> > should come close, anyway. Any decent RAID controller (not HP smartshit)
> > should achieve 500 GB/s in RAID 6 with 6 or 8 drives.
> > 3° the filesystem is important. Don't use ext3, it's slow as snails
> > crawling in molasses. ext4 is pretty slow, too. If you want to get
> > closer to bare metal performance, XFS is the best choice unless you
> > need more than 25 ACLs per file.
> > 4° filesystem options: if you have a RAID controller with BBU or like
> > to live dangerously, use nobarrier option or barrier=0. Don't use
> > data=ordered (well, if you really want to use ext4 try not to tie its
> > short legs).
> > 5° queue, read ahead options are very important too. Default linux
> > options are all thought out for single, 2004-vintage ATA disks. They're
> > far from optimal on modern hardware. They're even farther for RAID
> > arrays. Play with the nr_requests and read_ahead_kb options
> > from /sys/block/sdXX/queue . On modern RAID arrays, typical value I use
> > are
> > cat /sys/block/sda/queue/nr_requests
> > 1024
> > cat /sys/block/sda/queue/read_ahead_kb
> > 32768
> Really interesting and valuable insights - thanks !
> Maybe we should add these to the wiki ?
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
More information about the samba