[Samba] poor performance when copying files with windows client

[Nicolas Zuber]

Am 05.09.2017 um 10:17 schrieb Reindl Harald via samba:
>
>
> Am 04.09.2017 um 20:25 schrieb Nicolas Zuber via samba:
>> in my setup I have two samba file server with clustered samba 4.6.7 and
>> glusterfs 3.10. The server are connected via a 10 Gb network (one for
>> clients and an extra network for gluster). When I am copying files from
>> different server ( centos 7 1611, samba 4.4.4, connected with 10Gb) to
>> the file servers with scp, the maximum speed is 70 MB/s (for small files
>> this is decreasing)
>
> for 10 GBE 70 MB/sec are a joke to start with, any average 1 GBE
> network can do that and given that samba has a lot of roundtrips when
> your network has general problems with SMB they are always much worser
> (just look at the horrible performance over OpenVPN)
>
> [harry at rh:/downloads]$ scp harry at remote-machine:/www/bench.bin ./
> bench.bin
>
> 100%  256MB  94.2MB/s   00:02
>

The speed of 70MB/s was limited by the test file size. In the meantime a
run some more test to find the limiting factors. Coping a 10 GB file
with scp results in 365MB/s, with a windows client 110 MB/s are
possible. I have also tested the network speed with iperf which results
in 9.3 Gb/s for TCP. Hence, I think the network is fine. The problem
arises when copying larger amounts of small files. For the following
tests I used a folder containing 2000 files with 1kB of size each.
Because gluster seems also to slow down work with small files I also
tested shares without gluster. The results are the following:

scp:
       no gluster -> no gluster : <1s
       no gluster -> gluster :      <5s
       gluster      -> no gluster : <2s
       gluster      -> gluster :      <5s

samba share using a win 7 client to copy from share to share:
      no gluster -> no gluster : <23s
       no gluster -> gluster :      <4min
       gluster      -> no gluster : <40s
       gluster      -> gluster :      <4min

Using a windows 10 client to copy the date from share to share did not
improve the performance (testing protocol verison smb2 vs smb3). For now
it seems that using samba shares is causing most of the slowdown.

I will try also to use a linux with mount.cifs as suggested by Andreas.
Maybe someone has additional ideas for testing to exclude possible
bottlenecks.

Regards,
Nicolas